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.

[MHGinTN]

Do you understand Leviticus 3:17 ? You do! Then why don’t you abide by it in the Eucharist?

[dhs12345]

Yes, but isn't that typical of the corruption of the Word that happens so often.

The belief and way to salvation is simple and straightforward. Yet, flawed humans believe that somehow this can't be true and create a massive power structure and hierarchy, with endless rituals with little reference to the Bible, and rife with corruption (or the potential for corruption).

And oh BTW, only select people (Bishops, the Pope, etc.) can perform these rituals that offer salvation and so you must pay homage to them and unfortunately, God is secondary. Pretty bad.

IMO, this is exactly what is wrong with religion; all religions. Even Evangelicals like the Bakers (PTL) are subject to this distortion of the truth and exploitation. It happens way too often.

I prefer to cut out the “middle man” and pray directly to God.

[ravenwolf]

The ones who stopped following Jesus, were the ones who took Him literally. I take him figuratively, because I didn’t want to sin by drinking blood.

---

That is true, Jesus had already tried explaining to them but they would not hear.

John 6

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

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.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Ever hear some one say ( Oh yeah, I might just make you eat those words )?

Jesus is the word, it is his words we must eat, not his literally body.

[ADSUM]

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

It takes a lot of work to believe :

“‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’” (Matt. 7:21).

“‘Why do you call me “Lord, Lord,” and not do what I tell you?’” (Luke 6:46).

“For he will render every man according to his works . . .” (Rom. 2:6-8).

“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13).

“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).

“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?” (Jas. 2:14).

“So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas. 2:17).

“But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).

“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24).

[Lil Flower]

YOU could care less? Please. Its the same little group of Catholic bashers who post these articles and you always manage to stumble onto to them to give your 2 cents.

I’m not interested in bigotry. I’ll pray for you. I’ll make sure to stay off these threads in the future. And you can stop posting to me. I’m done.

[MHGinTN]

In catholic form of translating the Greek, you are correct. Your religion holds sacrilege as sacred. But the Bible is not contradicting itself, being as the author is the One Who Created the entire Universe and has not forgotten how to be Righteous. He said, in Leviticus 3:17 what He meant for all their generatiosn. Yet your religion teaches the contradiction regarding blood. But lets look at Luke's description of the Passover event Jesus sat to remember with His disciples.

Luke 22:14-20 14 When the hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles. 15 He said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God." 17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, "Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom of God comes." 19 He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me." 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Since your religion does not teach you the entire Bible, it is unlikely that you would comprehend the meaning in bold type above. When any animal was slaughtered, the blood is to be poured out upon the ground, never, never ever for drinking.

The Old Testament, which is the Bible Jesus taught from, has clear instructions on handling the blood of the sacrifice. It is not to be drunk because the life is in the Blood. The blood of the Passover lamb was applied to the door posts and lintel for the Passover remembrance. Then, in the Atonement Sacrifice, the sacrifice lamb's blood is to be applied to the Mercy Seat, to cover the sins against the law.

This process was repeated each year by the High Priest of the Tribes of Isral. BUT, Jesus as our great High Priest has entered the Holy Holies with His Blood, the most sacred of all blood, and He has spread His blood upon the Mercy Seat to cover the law of sin and death, FOR YOU AND ME.

The blood is not for drinking, ever! God does not contradict Himself even when speaking thousands of years before an event. The Life is in The Blood. You shall not drink blood, for the life is in the blood.

The Life of Jesus was poured out for you and me on the Cross and Jesus, our Great High Priest, enter the once into the Holy of Holies, and spread His perfected Blood upon the Mercy Seat, to cover the laws of sin and death so that His Spirit, God's Holy Spirit, may enter into your spirit as the earnest of an inheritance, God's LIFE IN YOU and ME, by the blood of Jesus upon the Mercy Seat, not in your belly.

What your religion is insisting you do is substitute the sacrilege of drinking blood, for the Sacred of Christ's blood upon the Mercy Seat. The God of Salvation does not contradict Himself. Do not think you can drink the literal blood of Jesus, in contradiction to what God has commanded to not do. That is sacrilege. And in this case sacrilege against the Most vital Grace Has given to humankind, the process of having God's Life in you. You cannot get God's Life in you through the throat and belly, for as Jesus said, what goes into the mouth comes out in the drought.

[dhs12345]

Sorry. My apologies.

Only Christ can offer salvation. Certainly others can teach, but they cannot offer salvation. And they can only teach as long as they don’t embellish (and ultimately corrupt) the Word in any way.

The relationship between God and the believer is a private and very personal one. All of the ritual and dogma is just fluff designed to give individuals power.

[Lil Flower]

You’re argument is not with me or any other Catholic. Its with Christ. Take it up with Him.

[Lil Flower]

Go look at my recent posts on a protestant thread. Don’t worry it won’t take you long. Then read some of your own posts on Catholic threads or the hate threads your friends post. Then tell me again whose angry. Goodbye.

[MHGinTN]

“The Catholic teaches us the Word of God and has been true to His teachings” Um, except in a few instances, like that eating of blood, that drinking of the literal blood of Christ, when God said to drink the wine in remembrance not cannibalism.

[MHGinTN]

IF you believe Jesus IS God with us, then What He Said in Levitus 3:17 has not been annulled, for The God of The Bible is not double-minded. You shall not drink the blood, for the Life is in the blood ... and The Life of Jesus was spread upon the Mercy Seat for cover the law of sin and death.

I realize this is very hard for a stony hearted catholic to hear, but you do not Get God's Life in you by drinking His blood. The 3000 at Pentecost did not get God's Life inthem by drinking His blood. The people in the House of Cornelius did not get God's Spirit in them, God's Life in them by drinking His Blood. He that hath ears, let him hear ...

[MHGinTN]

The magic of the mystery religion that is catholicism and not Christianity.

[MHGinTN]

And Satan comes with all signs and lying wonders and catholics will follow him because they have committed their souls to the sacrilege, ignoring the Sacred.

[caww]

..."The Catholic teaches us the Word of God and has been true to His teachings"....

Saying so does not make it so...this is what you might "believe" but the facts say otherwise.

The Church is the 'body of believers', past present and future, united through and by the Spirit of God with Jesus as it's head....it is not a building of 'institutionalized religion'. Faith rests on the Person of Jesus Christ not a institutionalized church or denomination.

Islam has also existed for hundreds of years...years do not confirm anything other than duration.....and a following that remains brainwashed by it's leadership to believe what they dictate.

Further the catholic church does NOT faithfully teach the teachings of Christ....it teaches catholicism and globalism which rests on the teachings of men and traditions, misusing scriptures to support their teachings rather than let their teachings reflect the scripture and determine their doctrines.

As recent evidenced of the catholic church shipwrecking it's membership by the leadership....and of which countless examples throughout history will attest....

God tells us that ...."the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and..." I do not want you to be participants with demons". .....You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (I Cor 10:20)

The Vatican City spokesman recently described this shared prayer between the Pope and the Head Imam as a gesture of inter-religious 'Harmony' and a 'joint' moment of silent adoration of God.

Let me remind you that God tells us ..."What 'harmony 'is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?....Of which he then instructs, clearly so,....."Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2nd Cor. 6)

[MHGinTN]

Amen! Jesus placed His Perfect Blood upon the Mercy Seat, covering the law of sin and death, so that you and I who place our faith in Him have direct access to the Holy of Holies because He has placed His Life in us by His Holy Spirit. We know we have not earned that privilege and we cannot of ourselves live up to such a family nature, but because He is in us, He raises us up in the Way that we should go, as His family members.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

St. Peter is claimed by the Church as being the first Pope.

However, if you asked Peter himself, he would have no idea of what you are talking about as the papacy had not been instituted in his lifetime. The Bishop of Rome for many centuries was regarded as just that, the Bishop of Rome. There were many Christian groups competing for power and authority for many centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. It took Rome centuries to consolidate its power and establish itself as the HQ of the Church. Then you had schisms, most notably in 1054, when the Church in the East separated from Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church was established. In addition, the papacy was moved to France in the Middle Ages for a period of time.

[MHGinTN]

You quote but do not comprehend.

You cited, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24).

You cite that passage yet do not comprehend "YOU SEE". James is speaking to and of the way men can see if the faith a man professes is indeed the faith of God's Life in them. But the catholic religion takes that passage and twists it to Nicolaitanize the confused adherents to that religion. And you just follow right along, ignorant of the Word of God. But don't think you are a special religion. Mormons do it too, and probably half of the Prtoestant denominations out of the 35,000.

[CynicalBear]

It’s amazing isn’t it? They insist that what they want to be is literal in John 6 but the rest of John 6 can either be ignored or isn’t literal.

[MHGinTN]

Bashing a false look-a-like religion pretending to be the only true form of Christianity is precisely what Christians should be doing in these last days. Your religion of Catholicism teaches sacrilege for the sacred. THAT deserves bashing. The poor lost followers of Catholicism’s sacrilege? Not so much, but it will burn in catholic bosoms when their false religion is exposed.

[MHGinTN]

Blossom, I took it up with Him more than forty years ago. It is because I took it up with Him not some misguided representative of the catholic religion that I can now share His Words with you to try and awaken you to the sacrilege your religion insists is sacred. If you cannot receive it, so be it. I am merely doing what He commands His family members to do in this last days before He returns to gather away His Bride. In the future, if you ignore His family members now, you will have 144,000 Jews to listen to for truth. Please, don’t spit on them as you spit now upon His family members trying to reach your heart.