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.
What does a Christian sound like ??
God bless you FRiend. :)
Peace,
SR
And what is wrong with what I said in post 409? Again I ask, what is my religion? Answer what you thing or shut up. And again I ask, have you been to Colorado recently? Seems from your diatribe you must be smoking something funny...
If you answer my question, then we can go further. BTW, you have no weight to throw around on the Internet. Calm down. As a Christian, I would not be ‘smoking’ anything from Colorado.
In post #409 you stated the following regarding the bread and cup:So let’s look at what he said...>br> 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!Does that mean what it says, that you agree Jesus said to cannibalize His literal body and blood?
I loved that poor woman. So wanting that promised celestial marriage and “spirit babies”......I fear her eternity will not be pleasant
Makes ya hate satan even more when you witness such a sweet spirit being so completely deceived.
Absolutely not, and if you read and understood what I posted you would know that.
Now answer my question...what is my religion? I asked you that first and you have refused to answer that question.
Have nice day, and stay away from drinking blood, even literal blood.
You, my FRiend, do not understand a lot of what you think you do. No, it is not about drinking blood. It is about your abhorrence of anything that smacks you as Catholic.
You obviously, in your narrow brand of PROTESTANT thinking cannot understand what Jesus said, if it seems to upset your applecart...your RIDGID believe (or is it Non Believe) system.
And since you won’t answer questions put to you, you can go to Protestant Purgatory so that Yeshua can get your head and your heart focused on Him rather than focused on all your perceived adversaries.
If we were to debate in a public forum, Yeshua would win, and I am on his side!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The Bible says the Life is in The Blood. The blood for atonement was to be placed upon the Mercy Seat to cover the law of sin and death. Jesus's LIFE was in His blood before the Resurrection.
With His resurrection He went to the Father, to the Mercy Seat IN HEAVEN and placed His perfect blood upon the Mercy Seat. He does not place His blood in your belly or the bellies of your religious adherents, the Catholics. That would violate His commandment to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS, and Jesus did not violate any of the commandments.
One more little point for your condescending catholic mind: there is a specific reason for Jesus telling Mary not to touch Him yet in the garden that Sunday morning. He had not gone unto His Father yet. Do you know why He told her that, based upon the requirements for the High Priest about to enter the Holy of Holies?
You see, a bully catholic is unable to comprehend the actual means of Salvation nor the actual reality of Sanctification. Why? Because to the catholic mind steeped in rituals as ruled over by the catholic church Nicolatian system, the plan of Salvation is almost the same as that of the Jewish law system ... a catholic is taught to work toward worthiness, the worthiness of God's Grace in Christ.
This works based system ignores what the Bible teaches and ignores the evidence given of the actual Grace hallmarking the Church Age. Perhaps that's why a man like you, steeped in Catholicism's false religion, cannot answer the evidence that men were saved during Peter's teaching at Pentecost as proven by God's Holy Spirit descending INTO these who believed the message and accepted Their Savior. This same proof was evidenced in the house of Cornelius, when the Holy Spirit came INTO the people present for Peter's sermon there, and the Holy Spirit didn't even wait for Peter to finish his sermon!
God's Grace in Christ is contrasted graphically from the Jewish system of trying to follow the laws of Moses for working their way to salvation with the great Church council at Jerusalem.
But you as a steeped catholic cannot get the message because you are under pharisaicesque orders to follow the law of Rome to obtain salvation, eventually, or repeatedly, or maybe, or ... well, even you should get the gist by now.
The only way that you are going to be able to do works of righteousness is if the ONLY righteous LIFE in the Universe is in you. That is ONLY possible because Jesus spread His perfect blood upon the Mercy Seat to cover the laws you will break daily and on FR threads because you are a descendant of Adam and have inherited a fallen nature.
GOD has a plan to put His righteous nature inside of you, but you must be born from above to receive His Life in you. That is in fact the easiest part of all, because all you have to do to be Born from Above is follow the lead of the 3000 saved on Pentecost, or the family and friends in the house of Cornelius. JUST BELIEVE HE IS SAVIOR AND LORD and claim the Promise of God that He will make you a new creation.
THAT is walking in the same faith exhibition as Abraham, and it was counted for him righteousness because his faithing was connected to the work Jesus did on the Cross and in the Holy of Holies. Then He will work on you, to raise you up in the Way that He wants His family members to go.
Everyone here claims to be on the side of Jesus. What Jesus said at the Last Supper about His body and blood is not a hidden mystery, but quite plainly what He said it was, something we do to remember Him, as all who love Him are happy to do. If you have another theory, why not just state it?
Peace,
SR
Yes, sir or ma’am, I understand that. I have diligently tried to refrain from personalities. MHGinTN made it personal many posts ago, has he been warned? If you read the exchange, you will see.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Roger. Should I repost that last essay rewritten for generic application?
No, just keep the focus on the message instead of the messenger from here on.
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.