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.

[HossB86]

So where are all the infallible interpretations of all the supposedly Spirit given pronouncements of the Catholic church throughout the last about 2,000 years?

Amen. But, what do you expect when they can't even figure out that Muslims do NOT worship the same God as Christians....? Speaks volumes. Not infallible volumes, mind you, but volumes.

:D

Hoss

[Elsie]

His official teaching in the Scripture

Scripture says, ...

Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[Elsie]

It’s crystal clear that they put their faith in manWOMAN! rather than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

 

Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.

Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.

Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.

Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.

Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.

Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.

Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.

Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.

[ADSUM]

The Holy Spirit would NEVER endorse the incorporation of paganism and heresy by those that left the Catholic Church and the teachings of Jesus as the protestors have.

[metmom]

First, show us where Protestants incorporate paganism in the adoption of it in their worship services, especially by their own admission.

Second, nice red herring there, but it doesn’t excuse or address the comment of CB,which is accurate by the admission of Catholics themselves.

Trying to deflect with a *Look!!! Over there!!* doesn’t work.

[SaveFerris]

They can’t figure out 841. Got a friend in the same boat.

It’s pointless.

[terycarl]

post 40 had no questions...it merely defined protestantism...Wabbabe Christians who are either in error or at least incomplete.

[terycarl]

Where is it that Jesus told apostles or Catholic priests to turn bread into Jesus' body???

do THIS in memory of me........see the word THIS

[Syncro]

post 40 had no questions...it merely defined protestantism.

Maybe to you, I had no comment on post 40.

In your apparent haste to malign Christians as "Wabbabe" who are "either in error or incomplete" it seems that AGAIN you have posted a nonsensical statement that isn't helpful at all to this thread.

The pompous condescending superiority attitude of Catholics towards Christians is not conducive to reasoned debate or helpful in leading non Christians to a relationship with Jesus.

[terycarl]

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.

everyone understands metaphor...not everyone is sitting at a table, facing death and is the Son of God....

[terycarl]

He took bread and blessed it,

then what did He do....read it and tell us.......

[terycarl]

The bible you guys gave us isn't enough to get a person saved.

yeah, we know that....the Bible alone won't do it... You need the 7 Sacraments,tradition, authority, all of which Catholicism has.....check us out and rejoin.....if you are Baptized, you are already a Catholic.

[terycarl]

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. We keep wanting to see the PROOF of this; but it NEVER comes.

Pay attention in 5th grade history class....name one other Christian religion mentioned in the history of Europe and Asia...look at the evidence, Libraries, Monasteries, Cathedrals, schools, hospitals, governments, many of which were destroyed by the protestant revolutionaries....kind of like ISIS is doing now.

[terycarl]

'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'"

Very interesting how you protestants jump on the blood part of that and never mention the fat part....did you ever eat a piece of beef or pork and NEVER consume any fat.....I didn't think so.

[terycarl]

’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.

NO....NO....NO... Don't do that...Elsie is very entertaining...great pictures and lists of naughty popes...you'll get to like and enjoy his posts and actually begin to think that he knows what he is talking about......rarely.

[terycarl]

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.

and they were ALL Catholic....not 1 protestant around.

[MHGinTN]

John 6 :26 - 29

Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Do you see any of the catholic sacraments or catholic extras in what Jesus told them?

[terycarl]

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.

Yeah....1,600 years of doing it wrong until a dissident priest came along to straighten us all out,,,,WHEW...just in time too...

[MHGinTN]

Sorry, if you claim them for catholics then you must claim the following list from the Rule of Harlots, too:

The catholic church cannot claim an unbroken chain back to Peter because of realities like the 'Rule of Harlots' 904-963: The following popes were either brought to Rome to run the popery as pope or raised up from the illegitimacy of harlots such as Theodora and her daughter prostitutes who placed popes on the papal throne. They directly placed the following 'unbroken succession':

Sergius iii (904 - 911)
John x (914 - 928)
Leo vi (928-929)
Stephen vii (929 - 931)
John xi (931 - 936)
Leo vii (936 - 939)
Stephen viii (939 - 942)
Martin iii (942 - 946)
Agepotus ii (946 - 955)
John xii (958 - 963)

And that list is just the Rule of Harlots period. Followed by two popes lit6erally buying the throne to sit it. Shall we go to Innocent iii to see where your specious transubstantiton comes from? Or the decree of infallibility? Or the forbidding of reading the Bible in the vernacular? Or the denouncing of the Magna Carta? Or the instituting of the Inquisition?

Yet catholics are taught that their religion is lead by an unbroken line of 'Vicars of Christ' (pope Innocent went further, naming himself the Vicar of God with all power over life and death on Earth). Just the unvarnished truth of your line of succession should cause a catholic who fears God to flee from that false religion!

[terycarl]

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.

l44,000 Jews.....lets see, that's just about the number of people who witnessed the Pope's latest Mass....and Catholics number about 1,300,000,000 right now and untold billions who have passed on.