Arguments against the Papacy?

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Is there any biblical or historical proof you have to disprove Peter as being the apostle Jesus chose to head his Church as pope?

Dear SojournerOnEarth;

The questions you place here, have already been answered and proven through scripture, sacred Tradition and post apostolic period, ages ago.

Before we go off into your interpretation of scripture on your questions, In all fairness to the OP, can you answer the OP here, " Is there any biblical or historical proof you have to disprove Peter as being the apostle Jesus chose to head his Church as pope?"

What is your argument against the following scriptures, from the Words of the Master. Which proves from a biblical/historical view Jesus chose Peter to head his church.

Jesus responds to Peter’s faith by saying: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:17-118

John 21: Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. This word “Feed” Jesus uses here is translated from original Greek to rule.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

In Mt 16 the rock is Peter’s faith, not Peter the man. There are numerous patristic sources that affirm this. It is also followed by what I cited earlier.

I also pointed out what happened after Peter thought he was in charge of others. You seem to ignore that I already addressed this. And the Greek word in the passage is Bosko: herd, tend, not rule over. The New American Bible, which is Catholic (a priest gave me mine) uses the word ‘feed’ here. Show me a translation that uses ‘rule’.

I am following apostolic tradition. You are not.

 

[Vonsalza]

The FIRST problem is the whole structure of the argument: “Arguments against the Papacy”. It’s a request to prove a negative. It should be “Arguments for the Papacy.”

Well… For starters… you’re on a Catholic website. The Catholic faith accepts the papacy as a given. Ergo, if you would like for it to be rejected as a given, then it must be argued against.

If you’re assuming this is a classic setting where we’re starting from the agnostic null and thus any assertion must be proofed, you err in your assumption. Again, look at the url of the site you’re posting on…

Show me the word “Pope” in Scripture.

Two issues here. First is that it invokes an “argument from absence”. These arguments can be used to argue anything, so they’re useless. If you used it in my intro to logic class during my days at the U, Dr. H. would have promptly rejected your work. We see “pope” in scripture exactly as many times as we see “Youth Pastor” or “Sinner’s Prayer”. So obviously Evangelicalism fails to meet the same test you propose for Catholicism.

Second issue is that it implies the notion that the Church should somehow arise exclusively from the bible that it, itself wrote - even as the Church was 300 years old when canon became even somewhat settled; rumblings about certain texts like the Antilegomena (latter half of the NT) continuing as late as Florence/Trent.

Tell me how Jesus’ rebuke of Peter immediately following the “thou art Peter” quote “Get thee behind me Satan! You are a hindrance” is an affirmation of papal primacy.

I love this particular text because it fully refutes the mistaken idea held by many evangelicals that “Catholics somehow think the pope is perfect”.

We do not. Popes can and do err in their individual actions, as the first obviously did as directly called out by Christ Himself.

Tell me how Paul, in describing the structure of the church in Ephesians 4, expounded widely on the great and powerful office of the pope as the unifier of all Christians.

Again, argument from absence here. In equal measure, tell me where the Lord decreed that the children and adults should be separated during Church, as so many do today.

Tell me how Paul, in writing to Rome, somehow neglected any mention of any primacy of that church whatsover or the great rank of its bishop.

…aaaaaand more “argument from absence”… Paul mentioned what he felt was pertinent to the audience to the purposes of the communique. “He didn’t mention X, so Y must be true” is invalid logic that you use repeatedly in your claims here.

That will do for a start.

Oi. You need to “start” by re-evaluating your rhetoric, as most of it wouldn’t pass a sophomore logic class (I know from personal experience).

If you want to be a member of the historical Church that Christ decreed can never fail, then you need to pick one that has actual historicity back to the 1st century. I know of only two trinitarian Churches that can make the claim. One of them is Catholic. Hank Hanegraaff picked the other one.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Ergo, if you would like for it to be rejected as a given, then it must be argued against.

Wrong.

Apparently you are incapable of defending your position that the papacy is Biblical.

The papacy is absent every time there would be full reason to demonstrate it. To restate it, it is never present where it should be present, if it were true.

The Matthew passage is not just “aw shucks poor imperfect Peter”. It is a demonstration of where his priorities lie. For the moment let’s say it WAS a prophecy of the later papacy? Its interests have historically been more aligned with Satan than God’s. You of course are aware of the Borgia popes, who were very guilty of the split of the church in the Reformation. Something a lot more than going slightly astray here, when Peter presumes to rebuke Jesus. Maybe Peter thought Jesus was talking about him? Then he got promptly flattened. And Jesus did not add “and you are pope anyway.”

The argument from silence is consistent and substantive when there is no evidence to the contrary. And there is none.

Popes can and do err in their individual actions, and also in their official functions. Catholics do not think everything they do in their official capacity is inerrant. Why should they be considered inerrant just because they think they can be? They can be wrong here, too.

s most of it wouldn’t pass a sophomore logic class (I know from personal experience).

let’s avoid ad hominem attacks, shall we?

 

[AlNg]

The Council of Constantinople of 381 was a local council of eastern bishops with no western bishop or representative of the Pope present. This council unilaterally changed the Nicene Creed of 325.

I thought that the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Council of Constantinople of 381 as the second ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. So does this mean that you can have an ecumenical council without the participation of the papacy?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

In Mt 16 the rock is Peter’s faith, not Peter the man. There are numerous patristic sources that affirm this. It is also followed by what I cited earlier.

Jesus is not building His Church upon Peter’s faith alone. Let’s review, Peter’s faith denied Christ three times. If Jesus was looking for faith to build HIs church upon, He would of began with the Roman Centurion. When Jesus found in this pagan Soldier “the greatest faith in all of Israel”. Thirdly, Peter was not the first to proclaim Jesus the Son of God. Nathanael was the first of many others who professed Jesus to be the Son of God, including the devils, not to exclude John the Baptist who testified of Jesus to be not only the Son of Man but the Word of God made flesh. Faith does play a role in this but is secondary not primary.

As far as Rock= Kepha is concerned. I side with St. Paul who calls Peter by his new name Jesus gives him, recorded in scripture as Kepha = Aramaic =Rock = Latin = Petra (os) in Latin. So Rock upon Jesus builds HIs Church is not Peter’s faith alone, but on Peter the second person singular Jesus renames as Rock.

I also pointed out what happened after Peter thought he was in charge of others. You seem to ignore that I already addressed this

We have not digressed to the authority exercised by Peter from scripture “yet”. We are dealing with the OP first. Did Jesus build His Church upon Peter?

And the Greek word in the passage is Bosko: herd, tend, not rule over. The New American Bible, which is Catholic (a priest gave me mine) uses the word ‘feed’ here. Show me a translation that uses ‘rule’.

I am following apostolic tradition. You are not.

Here is Sacred Tradition explained which your comment fell short of, Just for you

The word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is “boskein” --a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is actually the Greek “poimanao” --the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 7:17; 12:5, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. We see this “rule” in Rev 19:15, “From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.” Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the supreme pastor of the Church in Christ’s physical absence” [This term is also used to describe the rule of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Pet 5:2].

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I thought that the Roman Catholic Church recognized the Council of Constantinople of 381 as the second ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. So does this mean that you can have an ecumenical council without the participation of the papacy?

Yes and No. There is only one time a bishop of Rome ever attended a Church council and that was St. Peter in Jerusalem. The bishop’s of Rome need not be in attendance of Church councils “surprise”. The bishop of Rome can send delegates or not. BUT, the Church councils require the bishop’s of Rome ratification of the church councils findings. That is why the Emperors and Patriarchates of Constantinople were in contention with the bishop’s of Rome. Because the bishop of Rome would not bend to their falsehoods and usurping of Church divine given power.

History repeats itself today. Protestants rejecting the authority Jesus gives Peter to feed and tend His flcck on earth. The bishop of Rome will not relent the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Because God gives these to Peter never man.

 

[AlNg]

he Church councils require the bishop’s of Rome ratification of the church councils findings.

What if there are three popes at the same time? Would the decision of a council overrule the pope?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

In Mt 16 the rock is Peter’s faith, not Peter the man. There are numerous patristic sources that affirm this. It is also followed by what I cited earlier.

Jesus is not building His Church upon Peter’s faith alone. Let’s review, Peter’s faith denied Christ three times. If Jesus was looking for faith to build HIs church upon, He would of began with the Roman Centurion. When Jesus found in this pagan Soldier “the greatest faith in all of Israel”. Thirdly, Peter was not the first to proclaim Jesus the Son of God. Nathanael was the first of many others who professed Jesus to be the Son of God, including the devils, not to exclude John the Baptist who testified of Jesus to be not only the Son of Man but the Word of God made flesh. Faith does play a role in this but is secondary not primary.

Peter’s faith was faith in Christ. Peter was the one who failed, not faith in Christ. Jesus builds His church on the faith, which Peter had (this is what I meant by Peter’s faith, apparently unclear). He, Jesus, was the actual Rock, the object of faith. There are numerous patristic sources in conflict here, whether it was Peter, Peter’s faith, or Christ. It is not a unified picture by any means that they all said Peter was the rock, whether as an individual or in office. Jesus is perfectly capable of having stated this without any possibility of misinterpretation. So it cannot be used legitimately as a validation of the papacy.

2 Peter begins with ‘SImon Peter’: he continued to use both names. In Acts 10:5 the angel calls him ‘Simon who is called Peter’. Likewise in Acts 10:32. While he is called Peter a lot, it is clear that being called ‘Peter’ wasn’t that big a deal. Certainly it did not carry the weight Catholics put on it.

Faith is the primary instrument: faith in Christ, not faith in Peter. If you place your trust in the church instead of Christ you have committed a grave error.

Jesus did NOT build His church on Peter the man. There is reference to ‘on the prophets and apostles’ but Peter is not singled out as would be expected if he was so important.

The word in the text you referred to is bosko. Not poimaneo. Your argument does nothing to prove that Peter rules because it is factually incorrect at the basis. It’s just non sequitors.

Is this the best you can do?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

What if there are three popes at the same time? Would the decision of a council overrule the pope?

Only after the True Pope is found and ratifies the Church councils findings. When we have multiple popes, know that scandal is abroad between secular powers trying to influence the power of St. Peter’s Chari in their favor. These gates of hell have come against the Bishop’s of Rome =Peter, but they did not prevail. Peter still sits in Rome, including Peter’s and Paul’s bones lay there.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

The issue of which pope was the real one was not settled by a pope but by a council. However, today, popes outweigh councils, so today there would be no way aside from schism to solve this.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

How would you know which is the True Pope if there are ardent contenders running around claiming to be so?

The Gates of Hell thing, by the way…Gates are always defensive. That promise has NOTHING to do with anything related to doctrinal matters.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Regarding the ‘argument from absence’.

It’s like you say this horse has wings.

I say, where? I don’t see any on the tail. Or the head. Or the sides. In fact, I see no evidence at all that this horse has wings.

And your response is that of course the horse has wings, I am wrong because I am arguing from absence. A thing must be true because you say it is true. You can make an assertion and not be able to prove it, and when I demonstrate its lack of evidence, you respond with this.

It is ridiculous that you attempt to defend this position, @Vonsalza.

 

[BornInMarch]

There were one or two Popes who were installed by Secular Monarchs instead of being elected by the College Of Cardinals, and these was a time period in which the Papacy was a puppet of the French Monarchy, and some instances of Popes using bribery to gain their position, but in my belief that only disproves the claim of Papacy from those individuals - it doesn’t undermine the office itself.

 

[Vonsalza]

Regarding the ‘argument from absence’.

It’s like you say this horse has wings.

I say, where? I don’t see any on the tail. Or the head. Or the sides. In fact, I see no evidence at all that this horse has wings.

And your response is that of course the horse has wings, I am wrong because I am arguing from absence. A thing must be true because you say it is true. You can make an assertion and not be able to prove it, and when I demonstrate its lack of evidence, you respond with this.

It is ridiculous that you attempt to defend this position, @Vonsalza.

Look, you can try to craft a carefully worded apologetic for your rhetorical errors if you want… Arguments from silence and absence are trash arguments. Objectively so. For absolutely any statement, the number of things not-said is nearly infinite. Your imagination is the limit. As such, they’re useless.

Take those “arguments” into “Intro to Logic” at your local U and you will be unable to pass the class. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of your positions seem to be premised on these kinds of arguments.

 

[Vonsalza]

Apparently you are incapable of defending your position that the papacy is Biblical.

Two things;

First, that wasn’t your original question. Many folks have defended the papacy from scripture. You just don’t like the proof texts and reject them on an axiomatic level. Which is fine. Just understand that your rejection doesn’t make them “wrong”, merely insufficiently convincing for you, personally.

Second, the notion that the bible should be treated as a systematic theology text when (1. the Church was already 300 years old when it was somewhat canonized) and (2. debates over the canonicity of certain texts found even in protestant bibles was under debate as late as Florence/Trent) is an odd notion.

Seems you’ve placed the cart in front of the horse on that one.

The papacy is absent every time there would be full reason to demonstrate it. To restate it, it is never present where it should be present, if it were true.

More argument from absence here, and it’s pointedly subjective… Is there an emoji for the forehead slap in this new format?

The Matthew passage is…

Respectfully, spare me your interpretations… If Personal Revelation is actually real, then the Lord should lead me to the same conclusion you’ve drawn. Oh. Wait…

The argument from silence is consistent and substantive…

When literally anything can be read into absence and silence, how on earth could it then be called consistent and substantive?!?

Again, they’re trash arguments. Your rhetoric will be objectively improved when you abandon them.
I’m not saying change your position. Just change the way you defend it.

Popes can and do err in their individual actions, and also in their official functions.

Amen!

let’s avoid ad hominem attacks, shall we?

None used. If you tried to pass that junk past Dr. H, you would have been berated in front of class, by name (if this sounds rough, consider that most everyone there was “pre-law” and developing a tough philosophical “skin” was part of the education).

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

In Mt 16 the rock is Peter’s faith, not Peter the man. There are numerous patristic sources that affirm this. It is also followed by what I cited earlier.

1. Jesus creates a living office head in Peter alone, all the while in the company of all His disciples. When Jesus CHANGES Simon bar Jona’s name to Kepha= Rock = Peter.
   a. Jesus never changes or renames Simon bar Jona’s FAITH to Peter. You are hard pressed to prove, that Jesus renames Simon bar Jona’s faith to Peter=Rock.
   2. Jesus does not build His Church on flesh and blood where faith can be determined from.
2. Jesus begins to build His Church from the sign from the Father in heaven, which is the hallmark for Jesus to begin building His Church, see the biblical proof below;

Matt.16;17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,

In Mt 16 the rock is Peter’s faith, not Peter the man. There are numerous patristic sources that affirm this. It is also followed by what I cited earlier.

I believe you are pulling Patristic commentaries out of their context and grouping them together as if they all are commenting on a same theme, when they do not.

Expose your Patristic contradiction if you need help to settle your personal view.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The word in the text you referred to is bosko. Not poimaneo. Your argument does nothing to prove that Peter rules because it is factually incorrect at the basis. It’s just non sequitors.

Is this the best you can do?

Your correct, When Jesus spoke the word “Feed” = boskein, Jesus COMMISSIONED Simon-Peter ALONE in the presence of all His disciples after the resurrection, to give His flock “spiritual nourishment”.

When Jesus spoke the word “Tend” = poimanao, Jesus COMMISSIONED Simon- Peter ALONE in the presence of all His disciples (after the resurrection before Jesus ascended into heaven) to RULE His sheep.

Forgive my lapsed attention to the detailed original Greek words for feed and tend.

peace be with you

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

In Matthew 16:16-19 Jesus, the Stone which the builder’s rejected, Now becomes the builder of His Church. Jesus received the sign from His Father in heaven of whom to begin building His Church on earth. Flesh and blood did not reveal to Simon bar Jona, that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. It was the Father in heaven who revealed this Simon bar Jona.

Jesus seeing the sign from the Father in heaven, Who revealed this divine knowledge to Simon bar Jona. Jesus the rejected Stone, now takes on the role of builder, and lays down the first Rock =Stone and calls him by his new name Rock= Kepha=Peter. Jesus does not build His Church on man or faith alone, which has proven to fail in all ages. Jesus build’s His Church on the sign from heaven, revealed to Him by the Father.

Thus it was the Father in heaven, who entrusted Simon bar Jona as the sign for Jesus to begin to build His Church. But Simon bar Jona a man “of little faith”, who walked on water with Jesus is chosen from heaven. Jesus knowing Simon bar Jon’s faith, Changes Simon’s name to Kepha =Rock. The name change, Jesus gives, confirms on Simon bar Jona, a new office =Rock, a new character to last until the end of the ages, thus Rock = Peter.

After the resurrection, Jesus now commissions the Rock = Peter during a meal, which has covenant tendencies, in the present of all the other disciples, to feed and tend =“rule” His flock on earth, until He returns.

Peace be with you

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

How would you know which is the True Pope if there are ardent contenders running around claiming to be so?

This is not the first and only time, secular powers vied to infect the authority from the bishop’s of Rome. It takes holy men and living saints behind the scenes, who council and expose to the Church, what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. Once the dust settles a true Pope emerges and settles the matter or ratifies a true council’s findings. Then the Church, wounded and battle tested, moves on unchanged.

The Gates of Hell thing, by the way…Gates are always defensive. That promise has NOTHING to do with anything related to doctrinal matters

I beg to differ. The doctrinal subject here deals with who possesses the divine keys to bind and loose upon the (whole) earth. True the gates can be defined as a defense. But the gates of hades defines a captivated death. In other words. Jesus informs Peter (Latin for Rock) that a captivated death from the gates of hell are going to come against “IT”, that “it” is the office of Peter on which Jesus builds His Church. “But” say’s Jesus, that death or gates of Hades will NOT over come it. Thus the Chair of Peter survives, kingdoms, nations, genocides, wars including death to today. In a nut shell, thou Peter will die and his apostolic successors, death or the gates of hell will NEVER over come “IT”.

What your objection misses here, are the Keys given to Peter alone in the company of all the disciples of Jesus.

Peter has the power given by Jesus, to bind and loose on earth. Faith alone cannot exercise the divine power to bind and loose on earth. Jesus did not say to Peter to bind and loose your own house? Jesus gave Peter alone to bind and loose upon the whole earth, with the confirmation, that Jesus will bind and loose in heaven “whatever” Peter binds and loose on earth.

In conclusion; yes, we are discussing a 2000+ year old doctrine divinely given to the office of Peter alone, in the presence of Jesus disciples. A promise that death will end the office of Peter and Peter is divine key holder to bind and loose on earth as Jesus binds and looses in heaven.

I have concluded my argument, that there is no biblical/historical evidence that supports the rejection, Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter.

I have read your argument, let us leave these to board for judgement, should you like to proceed now with Peter exercising his divine keys from the apostolic age and throughout the centuries?

Peace be with you