Argument Against the Papacy

[MarcoPolo]

My claim is because Luke is a reliable witness, and doesn’t confirm Peter’s alleged papacy in connection with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16, it’s highly unlikely that Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 actually mean anything papal.

You still give us no reason to adopt your line of thinking that “Luke’s account in the single verse 9:20 must match every detail of Matthew’s 16:16ff, and if it doesn’t Matthew is wrong.” You don’t turn your argument around and ask yourself “Is my reading of Luke 9:20 consistent with Matthew 16?” You don’t consult John 1:42 or Mark 3:16, which also fortify Peter’s name change as a foundational rock in accord with Mat. 16. You don’t consult Luke’s other account of Peter’s headship and shepherding of the other apostles at the end of Luke 22 (complete with a special prayer that Peter’s faith not fail) (some might argue Luke 22 is an even stronger argument for a papacy, especially if you decipher the Greek in v. 32 and surrounding, so if you agree Luke is a reliable witness, you should believe in a papal office). You don’t even scratch the surface of the typological fulfillment of the OT institutions of a hierarchical ministry, nor the king’s operation through a prime minister, etc… I don’t know what else to say other than that your apologetic has no weight.

 

[Pax]

Perplexity,

Something I should have mentioned in my previous post is that your argument is one that I have never seen before. I’ve read a lot of material pro and con in regards to the papacy and your line of argument is not one that I was familiar with. Likewise, if I were arguing against the papacy, I would not have chosen this line of reasoning and use of scripture. The weaknesses as pointed out on this thread pretty much say it all. I think that if this line of reasoning had merit, that it would have been used by others many times before.

Just a thought because there really isn’t much new under the sun.

God bless.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

You’re basing all this on an argument from silence?

In other words, because Luke is silent in 9:20 about Peter being the rock, the papacy MUST be invalid?

That is good logic? :nope:

 

[Subrosa]

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.

Your words at the beginning of this post, “I think…” establish that your reasoning is completely arbitrary.

You still choose to overlook historical reality.

Subrosa

 

[Subrosa]

I have to admit that a sola scriptura atheist is an interesting concept!

Subrosa