Argument Against the Papacy

[Perplexity]

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.

If I’m honest I don’t believe the office of the papacy existed in 33 A.D., but I know what you mean with the changes the office has undergone.

I got the definition I’m using from a debate on the papacy between Bonocore and Engwer, in which Bonocore noted any further description of the papacy “such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church.”

 

[po18guy]

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.

OK.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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…

I do not see how you have established the truth of that statement, especially in view of the fact that so many alternate explanations have been proposed for how Luke could have neglected to mention the same words as in Matthew 16.

 

[po18guy]

If I’m honest I don’t believe the office of the papacy existed in 33 A.D., but I know what you mean with the changes the office has undergone.

I got the definition I’m using from a debate on the papacy between Bonocore and Engwer, in which Bonocore noted any further description of the papacy “such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church.”

Who on earth are Bonocore and Engwer? If I live long enough, I will Google them and double the number of their admirers!

You really, really, really, refuse to believe that there is a Bishop of Rome and that he is prime, do you? The degree to which you have gone, the extent to which you steadfastly maintain your incredulity is simply astonishing! You have focused on the papacy like a laser beam and are single-mindedly devoted to justifying, in your mind, some lack of foundation. Not even most Fundamentalist Baptists have gone to this extreme.

I also smell an agenda developing. Against forum rules, I might add.

 

[Perplexity]

I do not see how you have established the truth of that statement, especially in view of the fact that so many alternate explanations have been proposed for how Luke could have neglected to mention the same words as in Matthew 16.

P1 doesn’t say if Luke 9:20 doesn’t indicate an awareness of a papal doctrine in connection with Matt. 16, then the Catholic Church’s interpretation is inaccurate. It only says if Luke doesn’t confirm such a doctrine (regardless of where) then etc…

So none of the alternate explanations for why Luke 9:20 is ignorant of the papal interpretation of Matt. 16, deny P1.

I’ve rejected the alternate explanations thus far presented because none of them actually explain why, if Luke was aware that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18-19 established the papacy, he didn’t confirm this in his parallel to these verses?

It wouldn’t effect my argument if Luke believed in the papacy and showed this in other verses.

If this doctrine/fact(?) didn’t exist at this point in time then Catholicism is false.

 

[po18guy]

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

James, one must wonder at his manufactured conundrum. Does he suppose that the Church would stand for 2,000 years with no one left in charge?

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

What? Why? They are both providing their own theological perspectives and neither Gospel contradicts the other. Your premise is flawed from the start.

If you compare the various Gospel accounts of Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law, you will see a different perspective emphasized in each account. In Mark, Jesus pulls her up. In Luke, no mention is made of that but a commanding perspective is emphasized as Jesus “rebukes” her illness. In Matthew, Jesus touches her but it is said she got up. None of these contradict each other despite varying details or ways of describing the incident. In order to properly read Scripture, one must offer a proper theological hermeneutic to the text. What was each author rightfully emphasizing in his own text?

In other words, Luke’s account of Peter hardly discredits the Catholic interpretation of Matthew, regardless of the arbitrary rule you set up.

Furthermore, I recommend also comparing John’s account of Peter, which happens to include details totally supporting the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16.John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

 

[po18guy]

P1 doesn’t say if Luke 9:20 doesn’t indicate an awareness of a papal doctrine in connection with Matt. 16, then the Catholic Church’s interpretation is inaccurate. It only says if Luke doesn’t confirm such a doctrine (regardless of where) then etc…

So none of the alternate explanations for why Luke 9:20 is ignorant of the papal interpretation of Matt. 16, deny P1.

I’ve rejected the alternate explanations thus far presented because none of them actually explain why, if Luke was aware that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18-19 established the papacy, he didn’t confirm this in his parallel to these verses?

It wouldn’t effect my argument if Luke believed in the papacy and showed this in other verses.

If this doctrine/fact(?) didn’t exist at this point in time then Catholicism is false.

P1 is a non sequitur. It is a declaration made looking back, with the advantage of time and retrospect. You seem to believe that it is “proof”, while, in actuality, it is not even evidence.

Since the Apostles did not seem to be aware of the Trinity, does that make the Trinity false? Does that make all of their teaching false?

I know, this reasoning is outside of your area of control and is uncomfortable, so you will dismiss it out of hand. Closed mind, dude. I will rejoin you when it is open.

The next sound you ear is me shaking the dust from my sandals.

 

[Perplexity]

Who on earth are Bonocore and Engwer? If I live long enough, I will Google them and double the number of their admirers!

You really, really, really, refuse to believe that there is a Bishop of Rome and that he is prime, do you? The degree to which you have gone, the extent to which you steadfastly maintain your incredulity is simply astonishing! You have focused on the papacy like a laser beam and are single-mindedly devoted to justifying, in your mind, some lack of foundation. Not even most Fundamentalist Baptists have gone to this extreme.

I also smell an agenda developing. Against forum rules, I might add.

Yeah…I’ve just offered an argument and have tried to keep the discussion to that argument as opposed to another. I am open to being wrong, but haven’t seen convincing defeaters yet.

Whether I believe in the papacy is irrelevant to this discussion lol. It’d be convenient that your objections are unconvincing because I’m unjustifiably incredulous, and agenda driven. The fact of the matter is there are objective problems with your defeaters, that’s why I don’t find them convincing.

shrugs*

 

[po18guy]

Yeah…I’ve just offered an argument and have tried to keep the discussion to that argument as opposed to another. I am open to being wrong, but haven’t seen convincing defeaters yet.

Whether I believe in the papacy is irrelevant to this discussion lol. It’d be convenient that your objections are unconvincing because I’m unjustifiably incredulous, and agenda driven. The fact of the matter is there are objective problems with your defeaters, that’s why I don’t find them convincing.

shrugs*

I believe that when you control the discussion, you have no argument. Doubt for your entire life if you must. What you are in effect alleging is that all of the billions of faithful, all of the consecrated (Monks, Nuns, sisters, Brothers), all ofthe Abbotts, all of the Mothers Superior, all of the Priests, all of the Bishops, all of the Cardinals, and the Apostles themselves, for the past 1,978 years are all wrong and you are right. Spend 30 seconds or so pondering that.

 

[mardukm]

What is your basis for claiming that Luke is the only reliable witness to the Tradition of the primacy of St. Peter? Why is not Matthew equally reliable?

Don’t forget that it is Luke who recorded that Peter alone would receive a special prayer from Jesus to strengthen his brethren, which even now forms one of the biblical justifications for the unique Petrine ministry of the papacy. And don’t forget that it is Luke who records that God chose Peter to give to the Church its first dogmatic declaration - that the Gentiles should be received into the Church.

I noticed you are an athiest, so you are obviously coming at the issue with different presuppositions. Christians normally understand that the Bible must be taken HOLISTICALLY. ALL the books form ONE BIG PICTURE, and we don’t depend on just one book or author for our information on the Church and our Faith.

Your focus on an exact mimic of the Matthean passages in Luke is unjustified, for Luke affirms the special place of St. Peter in other ways (as mentioned above) that other authors do not mention. Or are you now going to claim that since the other biblical writers did not mention these same events, then they are really not relevant?

If you are trying to make a convincing argument, from a Christian perspective, your premise is flawed. The idea that something which is not mentioned by all the biblical writers somehow becomes less dogmatic in nature doesn’t make sense to the Christian who accepts Scripture as the Word of God.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LeafByNiggle]

P1 doesn’t say if Luke 9:20 doesn’t indicate an awareness of a papal doctrine in connection with Matt. 16, then the Catholic Church’s interpretation is inaccurate. It only says if Luke doesn’t confirm such a doctrine (regardless of where) then etc…

So none of the alternate explanations for why Luke 9:20 is ignorant of the papal interpretation of Matt. 16, deny P1.

I wish you had not used “etc…” above, because it is exactly that “etc…” that I am questioning. But now I can’t question it because I’m not sure what you really meant to say. But whatever it was, the alternate explanations do deny P1 because P1 is saying that there are no alternate explanations.

I’ve rejected the alternate explanations thus far presented because none of them actually explain why, if Luke was aware that Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:18-19 established the papacy, he didn’t confirm this in his parallel to these verses?

As I said before, Luke may not have been thinking of parallel structure. Why should he? And he may have simply failed to be comprehensive, despite his stated intention. How can you dismiss that as impossible?

 

[Pax]

Perplexity,

I think your approach is erroneous because it assumes a great deal about the gospel accounts. Please note that all three of the synoptic gospels differ from one another, and that none of them matches one another event for event or in the details of each event.

It might fairly be stated that the authors of the synoptics borrowed from one another depending upon the order in which they were written. Each gospel, however, was designed differently and for different audiences. What is necessary for one is not necessary for another. Likewise, the gospel of John is extraordinarily different from the synoptics. If we take the differences (and if you will, inclusions and omissions from one to another) we can quickly use your method of argument to place doubt upon a myriad of things that are nevertheless accepted in Christian teaching.

Weighing all of this along with all of the other evidence for the papacy mentioned and unmentioned on this thread, demonstrates that your concerns and conclusions based upon Luke vs. Matthew is IMHO largely misplaced.

God bless.

 

[JRKH]

James, one must wonder at his manufactured conundrum. Does he suppose that the Church would stand for 2,000 years with no one left in charge?

Well I’m not entirely sure what his thinking is, which is why I asked for clarification on how he was defining “papacy”.

After all, the Catholic church is not the only one to have existed for 2000 years. The EO is just as old, and while it’s stucture is nearly the same as the RC church, their view of the top position is different from ours. This differing viewpoint has been involved in several schisms and healings before the Great Schism of 1054.

Of course the Eastern Churches were accepting the primacy of the Roman See as successor to Peter, the only difference was in how the various patriarchs viewed the perogatives of that primacy.

So I guess it would be up to “Perplexity” to explain if jis argument is against ANY papal authority (which is not supported historically by either east or west) or if his argument is something else.

Peace
James

 

[Perplexity]

What? Why? They are both providing their own theological perspectives and neither Gospel contradicts the other. Your premise is flawed from the start.

If you compare the various Gospel accounts of Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law, you will see a different perspective emphasized in each account. In Mark, Jesus pulls her up. In Luke, no mention is made of that but a commanding perspective is emphasized as Jesus “rebukes” her illness. In Matthew, Jesus touches her but it is said she got up. None of these contradict each other despite varying details or ways of describing the incident. In order to properly read Scripture, one must offer a proper theological hermeneutic to the text. What was each author rightfully emphasizing in his own text?

In other words, Luke’s account of Peter hardly discredits the Catholic interpretation of Matthew, regardless of the arbitrary rule you set up.

Furthermore, I recommend also comparing John’s account of Peter, which happens to include details totally supporting the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16.John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

lol. It’s irrelevant to this argument whether Luke included accounts of miracles that the other Gospels don’t, or vice versa. Luke said he wrote his Gospel (and by extension Acts) to confirm those doctrines which Theophilus had been given. Think about all the points you raised ask how, if granted, would they effect my argument.

 

[Perplexity]

P1 is a non sequitur. It is a declaration made looking back, with the advantage of time and retrospect. You seem to believe that it is “proof”, while, in actuality, it is not even evidence.

Granting that P1 is anachronistic, and isn’t even evidence (whatever that means), it wouldn’t therefore follow that P1 is non-sequitor.

Since the Apostles did not seem to be aware of the Trinity, does that make the Trinity false? Does that make all of their teaching false?

I’m not saying Luke’s ignorance of the papacy makes the papacy false. I’m saying his ignorance of the papacy would strongly suggest the papacy isn’t a doctrine in the deposit of Faith.

I know, this reasoning is outside of your area of control and is uncomfortable, so you will dismiss it out of hand. Closed mind, dude. I will rejoin you when it is open.

This is a straw man, and fortunately straw men are generally flammable. This isn’t about my control, or comfort. It’s about not trailing off into irrelevant topics. Nobody who wants to just talk about x also wants to talk about non-x at the same time. It’s not about closed-mindedness lol.

 

[Perplexity]

I believe that when you control the discussion, you have no argument. Doubt for your entire life if you must. What you are in effect alleging is that all of the billions of faithful, all of the consecrated (Monks, Nuns, sisters, Brothers), all ofthe Abbotts, all of the Mothers Superior, all of the Priests, all of the Bishops, all of the Cardinals, and the Apostles themselves, for the past 1,978 years are all wrong and you are right. Spend 30 seconds or so pondering that.

This is a gross simplification. Pretty much…only Catholics think the RCC has remained the essentially the same since 33 A.D. The majority of non-Catholic patristic scholars don’t even think there was monarchical episcopate in Rome before 250 A.D.

Is it hard to believe that so many people could be in error? You have no trouble thinking all non-Catholics are in error, and non-Catholics (atheists, Greek Orthodox, pagans, Muslims, Protestants) are far numerous than Catholics. You have no trouble saying the Arians were wrong when they outnumbered the orthodox Christians. So, I hope you understand why I don’t find your argument convincing. It’s the same reason you don’t find mine

 

[Perplexity]

What is your basis for claiming that Luke is the only reliable witness to the Tradition of the primacy of St. Peter? Why is not Matthew equally reliable?

It’s neither my claim that Luke alone is a reliable witness to Tradition, nor that Matthew attests to St. Peter’s alleged primacy. 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.

I noticed you are an athiest, so you are obviously coming at the issue with different presuppositions. Christians normally understand that the Bible must be taken HOLISTICALLY. ALL the books form ONE BIG PICTURE, and we don’t depend on just one book or author for our information on the Church and our Faith.

I’m looking at this holistically.

Your focus on an exact mimic of the Matthean passages in Luke is unjustified, for Luke affirms the special place of St. Peter in other ways (as mentioned above) that other authors do not mention. Or are you now going to claim that since the other biblical writers did not mention these same events, then they are really not relevant?

I’m not talking about St. Peter’s special place in Scripture. I’m talking about whether Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 should be understand in a pro-papal sense. It’s possible Luke believed in the papacy but didn’t think Jesus’ words in Matt. 16 established the papacy.

 

[Perplexity]

So I guess it would be up to “Perplexity” to explain if jis argument is against ANY papal authority (which is not supported historically by either east or west) or if his argument is something else.

I have different reasons for rejecting papal authority. This argument is only concerned with whether Christ’s words in Matthew 16 ought to be understood in a pro-papal sense. The most this argument could establish is that the papacy as connected to Matthew 16 isn’t an truth contained in the deposit of Faith, the least is just that the papal interpretation is false/inaccurate.

 

[JRKH]

I have different reasons for rejecting papal authority. This argument is only concerned with whether Christ’s words in Matthew 16 ought to be understood in a pro-papal sense. The most this argument could establish is that the papacy as connected to Matthew 16 isn’t an truth contained in the deposit of Faith, the least is just that the papal interpretation is false/inaccurate.

In this I would disagree. To make your case you are falsely limiting the argument to 2 passages. The one in Matthew and the one in Luke. While I don’t discount your point that it would be better if these two accounts were more clear, this is a LONG way from extrapolating that, becuse they are not clear, that the papacy is not a part of the deposit of faith.

What I have seen is that you have brought up a very narrow argument against the papacy. I will agree that within this very narrow confine, you have a legitimate question.
But as others have pointed out the Church has never relied on Mt 16 alone, in it’s justification of the papacy so what you need to do now is to recognize that your narrow constraint is false and therefore your argument fails in the light of the full deposit of faith.

Peace
James