Argument Against the Papacy

[Perplexity]

In order to believe that Jesus Christ established the papacy, I think it’s important to be sure that the papacy is expressed by Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18-19.

One way we could be sure that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18-19 establish the papacy is to see if Luke’s parallel to these verses indicate the same meaning, assuming the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is accurate.

I feel that the meaning of Luke 9:20, (Matt. 16:18’s parallel) is paramount in discerning the meaning of Matt. 16:18 because as Lk. 1:1-4 states, Luke’s intention in writing his Gospel (and by extension, Acts) was to assure Theophilus of the things he’d been taught. Luke examined the available accounts of Jesus’ ministry, death, and the spread of his movement to ascertain the most historically reliable information. The result was Luke’s two volume Greco-Roman biography/ancient historiography Luke-Acts.

We can therefore reasonably infer that if Jesus established the papacy in the words of Matt. 16:18-19 Luke would have been aware of this. That is, it’d be surprising that Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 meant the establishment of the papacy and Luke, after his extensive research and thorough familiarity with the relevant sources and information was ignorant of this.

However, Lk. 9:20 cannot possibly be interpreted in any sense favorable to the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that either Luke wasn’t aware of a papal teaching connected to these words, or he was aware and didn’t record it.

If Luke wasn’t aware of such a teaching, it’d be surprising such a teaching belonged to the deposit of Faith.

If Luke was aware of such a teaching, but didn’t record it, it’d be surprising that such a teaching belonged to the deposit of Faith for the following reasons:

a. If we regard Luke as a trustworthy guide to authentic Christian teaching and history

b. If we assume Theophilus had been taught something like a very primitive understanding of the papacy in connection with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 and that Luke would have confirmed such a teaching.

Both of these assumptions should be incontestable for the Catholic.

Therefore, given the fact that Luke’s parallel to Matt. 16 doesn’t express any knowledge of a papal doctrine, it’s highly unlikely that the doctrine of the papacy belonged to the deposit of Faith.

 

[Subrosa]

One thing that you are overlooking is Luke’s account of Peter and his position in the early church. A careful reading of scripture, in Luke and other places, shows that Peter had a place of leadership.

Examples include:

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter spoke, all were kept silent.

There are many many more examples of which Peter is always first in order or makes the decision.

Following the scriptural period, the Bishop of Rome, who would become known as Pope, was recognized as the leader of Christianity. A quote from Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” book 3, chap.2…

*Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. *

This was written in the year 110 ad. Second and third generation Christians certainly recognized the leadership of Rome, stewarded by the Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor.

Subrosa

 

[po18guy]

First off, we are approximately 1,950 years past the writing of the NT scriptures. Our contemporary vantage point is that of examining a well-organized and developed Church that is the oldest existing human organization. From this point, we now look back upon the age of its birth and infancy. By analogy, is this not akin to saying that your grandparents may not be genuine or original, since they do not resemble their baby pictures? However, their DNA remains identical, does it not? Looking upon your grandparents today is viewing mature, grown adults, who do not appear or think like infants. They are the products of the development which has occurred over the span of their lives.

The NT scriptures reflected the state of the nascent Church. Many NT writings reveal that the authors were not aware of the Trinity, even though Jesus named the Trinity in Matthew 28:19. When it was finally understood, it was then aded to the deposit of faith and taught as doctrine. Luke, in particular, was written by a Greek Gentile for Gentile Christians. Luke was not an eyewitness to any of the events, and apparently constructed his Gospel through interviews with those who either were eyewitnesses, or who handed on the history that had been handed on to them. The fact that the Gospels differ in detail is not problematic in the least.

Why? The offices that were created by Christ upon the Apostles was of structural, of organizational, and not dogmatic nature. Luke is confirming the Christian faith to Theophilus, not the form of the infant Church. Theophilus would have been well aware of such a structure from attending the assembly to which he belonged. Thus, he would not have to be instructed in the form of that Church, but rather what that Church taught and believed.

The Gospels are similar in nature to all eyewitness statements. They reflect the particular point of view of the author, which is colored by their own personalities, vantage points, level of education, life experience, involvement in the story, etc. Rarely, if ever will two persons viewing the same incident report identical observations - this is simply human nature. The fact which remains is that God inspired each author to contribute a portion to the entirety of scripture. If each of the Gospels was a carbon copy of the others, that would cast doubt upon their veracity.

 

[JRKH]

In order to believe that Jesus Christ established the papacy, I think it’s important to be sure that the papacy is expressed by Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18-19.

I agree and there are a number of ways to do this.

One way we could be sure that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18-19 establish the papacy is to see if Luke’s parallel to these verses indicate the same meaning, assuming the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is accurate.

**And here is another way **

I feel that the meaning of Luke 9:20, (Matt. 16:18’s parallel) is paramount in discerning the meaning of Matt. 16:18 because as Lk. 1:1-4 states, Luke’s intention in writing his Gospel (and by extension, Acts) was to assure Theophilus of the things he’d been taught. Luke examined the available accounts of Jesus’ ministry, death, and the spread of his movement to ascertain the most historically reliable information. The result was Luke’s two volume Greco-Roman biography/ancient historiography Luke-Acts.

Are you sure that Luke "examined the available accounts (as in all of them)? He does say in Luke 1:3 that he has followed all things closely, but does that mean he has all the available material?

We can therefore reasonably infer that if Jesus established the papacy in the words of Matt. 16:18-19 Luke would have been aware of this. That is, it’d be surprising that Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 meant the establishment of the papacy and Luke, after his extensive research and thorough familiarity with the relevant sources and information was ignorant of this.

However, Lk. 9:20 cannot possibly be interpreted in any sense favorable to the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that either Luke wasn’t aware of a papal teaching connected to these words, or he was aware and didn’t record it.

Well - since Luke is entirely silent on the subject here one must conclude that NO interpretation can be drawn from this passage, either before or against.

If Luke wasn’t aware of such a teaching, it’d be surprising such a teaching belonged to the deposit of Faith.

If Luke was aware of such a teaching, but didn’t record it, it’d be surprising that such a teaching belonged to the deposit of Faith for the following reasons:

a. If we regard Luke as a trustworthy guide to authentic Christian teaching and history

b. If we assume Theophilus had been taught something like a very primitive understanding of the papacy in connection with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 and that Luke would have confirmed such a teaching.

Both of these assumptions should be incontestable for the Catholic.

Therefore, given the fact that Luke’s parallel to Matt. 16 doesn’t express any knowledge of a papal doctrine, it’s highly unlikely that the doctrine of the papacy belonged to the deposit of Faith.

Your points are ineresting, but highly inconclusive. Given the state of Scripture at the time, we cannot be entirely sure which was written first, Luke or Matthew.
Similarly, there are many things not recorded in Scriptures at all, a point mentioned by John in his Gospel.
We could just as reasonably conclude that Luke and Theopolus were completely aware of Peter’s authority but that they were unclear on exactly when and how that authority was granted…Something that Matthew cleared up.
What we do know is, as subrosa points out, Peter is consistantly mentioned as the leader of the Apostles. He is mentioned by name more times in the NT than all the other apostles combined.
Further, in Acts, Luke begins by following Peter’s ministry until he (Luke) takes up with Paul and then records Paul’s ministries and journeys. Yet we Also see in Acts that Paul presents himself to Peter and James and presents his teaching to them to assure that they are all teaching consistantly.
Likewise, recorded by Luke in Acts, is Peter’s pivotal role in the Council of Jerusalem.

I agree that Mt 16:18 would be more forceful if it were repeated in the other Gospels, but it is not. And yet…From the times of the Early Church, till now, the bishop of Rome has been accorded the position of primacy - first among equals. This what I mean by there are many ways to establish confidence in Christs commision to Peter.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

Here is a little more documentary evidence that Peter was primary among the Apostles. It is far from a complete listing.

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, “the beloved disciple” at 29 times. Peter is always listed first among the Apostles (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-17, Acts 1:13)

Also, you read “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing his position amongst them. Note here that Luke also listed Peter first, a recognition of his primacy.

Peter was the only one of the Twelve Apostles who:

Walked on water (Matthew 14:30).

Raised the dead: (Acts 9:36-42).

Whose healings were individually recorded: Acts 3:3-8.

Whose shadow healed. (Acts 5:15).

Was specifically sent to the Gentiles: Acts 15:7.

Spoke at the first council and silenced the others (Acts 15:-15). FYI: James presided over the council, because his bishopric was Jerusalem. There he governed and there he was martyred. Peter travelled to the Gentiles and to the Jews of the diaspora.

There are many more references to be found.

 

[Perplexity]

Subrosa & po18guy:

I think Luke’s description of Peter and his activities outside of Luke 9:20 is irrelevant to whether Luke was ignorant of the papacy in connection with the words of Matthew 16:18-19.

Vatican I offered an official interpretation of the Petrine passages, and declared that its understanding of Matt. 16 was understood by all the faithful through the ages.

The problem is we’d expect Luke to confirm such a doctrine if he was aware of it. However, when he gets to these words of Christ (his parallel to Matt. 16) he doesn’t confirm any papal doctrine. Therefore, as far as these words go, it’s suspect that he was aware of such a doctrine.

The verses you’ve advanced in support of Luke’s seeing Peter as the pope throughout the rest of his Gospel and Acts are highly controversial and while they don’t prima facie support your position, they do merit consideration. However, because I feel they’re irrelevant to the topic of this thread I don’t feel compelled to address them.

 

[Perplexity]

Are you sure that Luke "examined the available accounts (as in all of them)? He does say in Luke 1:3 that he has followed all things closely, but does that mean he has all the available material?

Yes I am.

Well - since Luke is entirely silent on the subject here one must conclude that NO interpretation can be drawn from this passage, either before or against.

The biggest objection to my argument that I’ve encountered thus far is that it’s an argument from silence. However, this isn’t the case. I’m simply saying granting Luke was aware of a papal doctrine connected to these words of Christ (as Vatican 1 claims) then we should expect to see x. We do not see x. Therefore…

We could just as reasonably conclude that Luke and Theopolus were completely aware of Peter’s authority but that they were unclear on exactly when and how that authority was granted…Something that Matthew cleared up.

In such a case we’d have good grounds to doubt the contemporary Catholic exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19

What we do know is, as subrosa points out, Peter is consistantly mentioned as the leader of the Apostles. He is mentioned by name more times in the NT than all the other apostles combined.
Further, in Acts, Luke begins by following Peter’s ministry until he (Luke) takes up with Paul and then records Paul’s ministries and journeys. Yet we Also see in Acts that Paul presents himself to Peter and James and presents his teaching to them to assure that they are all teaching consistantly.
Likewise, recorded by Luke in Acts, is Peter’s pivotal role in the Council of Jerusalem.

Sure but again all of this evidence is highly controversial, and doesn’t logically imply the papacy as the evidence is equally well explain by other hypotheses.

 

[Perplexity]

Subrosa: As far as Ireneaus’ quote goes, he didn’t write that in 110 A.D. cause he wasn’t born in 110 A.D. I think you’re mixing him up with Ignatius of Antioch, some of whose writings are commonly dated to 110 A.D. However, Ignatian scholarship isn’t even that precise.

The quote itself doesn’t indicate a belief in the papacy (as you understand it), but even granting it does, this wouldn’t imply Luke understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 to teach some kind of papal doctrine.

 

[po18guy]

I think Luke’s description of Peter and his activities outside of Luke 9:20 is irrelevant to whether Luke was ignorant of the papacy in connection with the words of Matthew 16:18-19.

Regardless of whether or not Luke was aware of Peter’s office, he listed Peter first among the others five times (Luke 6:14, 8:51, 9:29, 9:32, 22:8). This is not coincidence. Remember also that we are reading of an informal Church that is only beginning to take shape, with no building to gather in, and no physical property whatever. As well, there is no written evidence in scripture that Luke ever met or spoke with Peter.

Vatican I offered an official interpretation of the Petrine passages, and declared that its understanding of Matt. 16 was understood by all the faithful through the ages.

Luke certainly does not deny the primacy of Peter, but rather honors it by naming him 19 times in his Gospel. John is mentioned by Luke only 7 times, and the others even less - Matthew only 1 time. Consider: Luke mentions the Gospel writers 8 times, but Peter, who wrote no Gospel, 19 times.

If we move to Acts, Luke names Peter 72 times! The next is John, named only 15 times (14 of those in combination with, and following Peter) and James is named just 5 times. Again, the others even less.

I think this is a canard. What we know today as the papacy was then known only as the primacy. The veritable mountain of scriptural evidence testifies to this.

Think about this: Even if Jesus had not named Peter as the rock (changing Simon’s name to rock), He gave the Church the authority to make Peter primary. The “Whatever” that Jesus gave to the Apostles in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) truly meant “whatever”. So, even if the Church declared it out of thin air, it was by Jesus’ authority. Clearly not the case, however.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The biggest objection to my argument that I’ve encountered thus far is that it’s an argument from silence. However, this isn’t the case. I’m simply saying granting Luke was aware of a papal doctrine connected to these words of Christ (as Vatican 1 claims) then we should expect to see x. We do not see x. Therefore…

Yes, that is the main problem with your argument. And I don’t think you have done an adequate job establishing that your expectation of x is an expectation that ought to be fulfilled. You are focusing on structural discrepancies, not factual ones. By today’s standards of comprehensiveness in writing, these early writings may not measure up. But to pick one particular reason out of many equally-possible reasons for this lack of comprehensiveness is not the basis for a sound logical deduction.

I think the first posting by po18guy did an excellent job offering alternative possible explanations for the “missing” statement in Luke. To that I will add one more. Although Luke announces his intention to be comprehensive at the beginning of his gospel, we must allow for Luke’s human limitations as a writer. Perhaps if he had known that many centuries later, his omission of mention of Petrine authority in that particular passage would have led you to doubt it, then he probably would have included it. But from his perspective at that time, he obviously didn’t think it was necessary. Jumping from that to the conclusion that he flat out didn’t believe it is a leap of faith I am unwilling to take.

 

[po18guy]

The biggest objection to my argument that I’ve encountered thus far is that it’s an argument from silence. However, this isn’t the case. I’m simply saying granting Luke was aware of a papal doctrine connected to these words of Christ (as Vatican 1 claims) then we should expect to see x. We do not see x. Therefore…

It was not a doctrine, just a fact. It was formalized and written later. Good to ask these questions, but I think your line of reasoning puts you in danger of leading yourself astray.

Remember that the bible is basically the sacred Cliff’s Notes of God’s covenants with man. Ii is incomplete and tells us so in may places (see Luke 3:18, John 20:30, 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34 for example). It is not to be used in isolation from the teaching of the men that God sent forth with authority.

 

[JRKH]

Yes I am.

The biggest objection to my argument that I’ve encountered thus far is that it’s an argument from silence. However, this isn’t the case. I’m simply saying granting Luke was aware of a papal doctrine connected to these words of Christ (as Vatican 1 claims) then we should expect to see x. We do not see x. Therefore…

In such a case we’d have good grounds to doubt the contemporary Catholic exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19

Sure but again all of this evidence is highly controversial, and doesn’t logically imply the papacy as the evidence is equally well explain by other hypotheses.

In order to clarify something let me ask you this…

When you refer to Papacy, are you thinking primarily of the office as it exists today - the lead shepherd of a billion + souls, or are you thinking of it in the times and on the scale that existed in the 1st century?

Peace
James

 

[Perplexity]

Regardless of whether or not Luke was aware of Peter’s office, he listed Peter first among the others five times (Luke 6:14, 8:51, 9:29, 9:32, 22:8). This is not coincidence. Remember also that we are reading of an informal Church that is only beginning to take shape, with no building to gather in, and no physical property whatever. As well, there is no written evidence in scripture that Luke ever met or spoke with Peter.

But that’s precisely the topic of this forum, whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine in connection with the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. The facts that Luke mentions Peter x amount of times, or this that or the other don’t seem to effect whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine connected to Jesus’ words in Matthew 16.

I think this is a canard. What we know today as the papacy was then known only as the primacy. The veritable mountain of scriptural evidence testifies to this.

I think it is more reasonable to disbelieve in your position, given all the evidence however it’s irrelevant to this forum. Perhaps we could debate the papacy elsewhere though.

Think about this: Even if Jesus had not named Peter as the rock (changing Simon’s name to rock), He gave the Church the authority to make Peter primary. The “Whatever” that Jesus gave to the Apostles in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) truly meant “whatever”. So, even if the Church declared it out of thin air, it was by Jesus’ authority. Clearly not the case, however.

I don’t think a Catholic can use a text (qua Scripture) which he believes to have been infallibly declared canonical in order to establish the Church’s infallibility or authority without reasoning circular.

 

[Perplexity]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, that is the main problem with your argument. And I don’t think you have done an adequate job establishing that your expectation of x is an expectation that ought to be fulfilled. You are focusing on structural discrepancies, not factual ones. By today’s standards of comprehensiveness in writing, these early writings may not measure up. But to pick one particular reason out of many equally-possible reasons for this lack of comprehensiveness is not the basis for a sound logical deduction.

This isn’t a deductive argument

What I think everyone must admit is either Luke was aware of some kind of papal doctrine connected with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 or he wasn’t.

What are the implications of either option apropos the Catholic claim that Matthew 16 contains the establishment of the papacy?

I think I’ve done an adequate job of showing what the possibilities are, and concluding appropriately.

I think the first posting by po18guy did an excellent job offering alternative possible explanations for the “missing” statement in Luke. To that I will add one more. Although Luke announces his intention to be comprehensive at the beginning of his gospel, we must allow for Luke’s human limitations as a writer. Perhaps if he had known that many centuries later, his omission of mention of Petrine authority in that particular passage would have led you to doubt it, then he probably would have included it. But from his perspective at that time, he obviously didn’t think it was necessary. Jumping from that to the conclusion that he flat out didn’t believe it is a leap of faith I am unwilling to take.

The topic is not whether Luke believed in the papacy lol. It doesn’t matter whether other statements of Luke’s suggest a belief in the papacy. All I’m concerned with is whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine in connection with Jesus’ words in Matthew 16.

 

[Perplexity]

JRKH:

When you refer to Papacy, are you thinking primarily of the office as it exists today - the lead shepherd of a billion + souls, or are you thinking of it in the times and on the scale that existed in the 1st century?

When I say “papacy” I mean: The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.

 

[po18guy]

But that’s precisely the topic of this forum, whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine in connection with the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19. The facts that Luke mentions Peter x amount of times, or this that or the other don’t seem to effect whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine connected to Jesus’ words in Matthew 16.

You seem stuck on this point of needing to hear about the recognition of a doctrine which did not yet exist. I think your doubt is on a deeper, more fundamental level.

I don’t think a Catholic can use a text (qua Scripture) which he believes to have been infallibly declared canonical in order to establish the Church’s infallibility or authority without reasoning circular.

I think that your reasoning is forming the circle, as you ask for something that was not there, and keep coming back to it.

Think linearly instead. Jesus founded His Church with Peter as its earthly head. It follows in a straight line from there directly to today. An unbroken line. No circles needed.

Don’t want to believe it? Fine. We differ. We do not convince you or convict you of anything in matters of faith. That is up to the Holy Sprit.

 

[Perplexity]

po18guy:

P1: "And this infallibility which the Divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” - Lumen Gentium, n. 25.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter and his successors so that by His revelations they might propose new doctrine but that by his assistance they might jealously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of the faith handed down by the apostles.” - Vatican Council, De Ecclesia, chap. 4.

P2: “Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.” - Vatican Council, Sess. IV, chap. II.

C: Therefore, the doctrine of the papacy belongs to the deposit of Faith.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This [my argument] isn’t a deductive argument

What I think everyone must admit is either Luke was aware of some kind of papal doctrine connected with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 or he wasn’t.

What are the implications of either option apropos the Catholic claim that Matthew 16 contains the establishment of the papacy?

On one hand you say your argument is not deductive. Then in the very next breath you proceed to call for an “implication”. That is just a deduction under a different name. So come on, now. Admit it. You are calling for us to deduce that the doctrine of the papacy is ill-founded. And as a deductive argument, you just haven’t made your case yet.

I think I’ve done an adequate job of showing what the possibilities are, and concluding appropriately.

You cannot “conclude” anything from possibilities - you can only speculate. And you have done an adequate job of that.

All I’m concerned with is whether Luke was aware of any papal doctrine in connection with Jesus’ words in Matthew 16.

I still don’t follow why you think this very narrowly focused question has such broad implications on the legitimacy of the papacy.

 

[Perplexity]

LeafByNiggle:

First, I’m not sure how familiar you are with logic but implication is a concept present in inductive, deductive, abductive, modal, denotic and all different kinds of logic.

Second, lol all I’m arguing is a simple modus tollens (speaking of logic):

P1: if the Catholic Church is correct in asserting that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 established the papacy then we’d expect Luke to have confirmed such a doctrine, connected with these words.

P2: Luke did not confirm such a doctrine, connected with these words.

C: Therefore, the Catholic Church is incorrect in asserting that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 established the papacy.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH:

When I say “papacy” I mean: The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.

Thanks…an excellent definition.

The reason I ask is because, as I’m sure you are aware the office of the papacy has evolved and developed over the millenia from 33AD until now. This fact can make it difficult to put ourselves into the mindset of the church and the authors of the day.

Peace
James