Does the New Testament point unequivocally to Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vadim244
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vadim244

Guest
A question to Roman Catholics: do you agree with the following text?
“It is of course possible to read the New Testament so that it is not directed toward Pope; it does not point quite unequivocally to Pope. And if Orthodox Christians cannot see that the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 refer to Pope, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Pope. Pope brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the New Testament refers to Pope and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
 
A question to Roman Catholics: do you agree with the following text?
“It is of course possible to read the New Testament so that it is not directed toward Pope; it does not point quite unequivocally to Pope. And if Orthodox Christians cannot see that the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 refer to Pope, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Pope. Pope brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the New Testament refers to Pope and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
No. Scripture points to the papacy and orthodox Christians see and recognize and accept the Petrine primacy. The issue is with power and the way the figure of the Pope became by historical necessity a monarch. Orthodox bishops acknowledge that the Apostolic See of Rome is different and special, but won’t accept it can rule over or command over their own episcopal sees (in poor words, but that’s the concept, I think).

Things will change.

I invite you to read more about the Pope, for it’s not just Mt16:18 and there are many writings of Church Fathers on this - a long, solid tradition.

:hug1:
 
No, the New Testament does not point explicitly to the Papacy as it is defined by the Church today. Instead, the idea of the Papacy is implicit in the New Testament and has been defined over time by the Tradition and on-going teaching of the Church.

The role of the Pope evolving before our eyes over the past month… BXVI’s abdication represents the end of the Papal Monarchy and Francis’ first few days point to another step towards collegiality and giant step back towards a structure that more closely resembles that of the early Church…
 
I know many Orthodox Christians, including priests, and they agree with the passage Vadim posted…that when you read that sentence, it does not say or even imply that Peter is the first “pope” or that Jesus meant for there to be “popes” (by the way, why isn’t Jesus considered the first pope?) … and that there is no ill-will in disagreeing with the interpretation here…just…that when you read that sentence, it does not read that way for them.

I don’t know about this whole power-struggle issue, but I imagine that if people don’t read that sentence as Jesus saying there should be a pope, the ensuing “power” issue that RC describes above would make sense…it would not seem right or what Jesus would have wanted to have a monarch like this to rule and command.
I don’t see Jesus as the first Pope. Jesus is God! The Pope is His servant on earth, tending the body of Christ until His great and glorious return. Jesus did institute a structure to HIS Church for the purpose of UNITY. We need to get over our fears of being controlled, and humbly accept the leading of Jesus. The Pope is the servant of all. He assists the Church who’s mission it is to repeat the lessons of Christ to each new generation.

When reading scritpure verses in the Bible the Catholic Church has a clairity that our current generation of readers lack. The Church was there when this was taught first orally, which is our oral Tradition. Therefore the Church witnessed the events, and understands, as the Apostles did. Simon was renamed Peter, because of his calling as the first Pope. Jesus specificly gave him the keys to the Kingdom, which has great signifcance in the nation of Isreal. Jesus prayed for Peter, for his faith. The Apostles accepted him as their servant leader. St. Paul went to Peter to confirm his teachings were true, and acceptable. Peter is the speaker at Pentecost when thousands were converted. It is the birth of the Catholic Church! Peter is mentioned over a hundred times in the Bible, and always the first named when listing the Apostles.

Do you not know that it is the Holy Spirit which chooses, and guides the Pope? That the Pope has surrendered his life. That God may use his hands to bless the world.
 
A question to Roman Catholics: do you agree with the following text?
“It is of course possible to read the New Testament so that it is not directed toward Pope; it does not point quite unequivocally to Pope. And if Orthodox Christians cannot see that the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 refer to Pope, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Pope. Pope brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the New Testament refers to Pope and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
Shouldn’t there be an acknowledgement for the above quote?
Where is it from.

As to what it says…Yes I agree with it. Many protestants also disagree with the Catholic understanding on the matter.

As others have said, the role of the Papal office has evolved over time. I look for it to continue to evolve. But I see this as primarily a matter of Church governance and a “discipline” which can be modified as the Holy Spirit sees fit.

Peace
James
 
I know many Orthodox Christians, including priests, and they agree with the passage Vadim posted…that when you read that sentence, it does not say or even imply that Peter is the first “pope” or that Jesus meant for there to be “popes” (by the way, why isn’t Jesus considered the first pope?) … and that there is no ill-will in disagreeing with the interpretation here…just…that when you read that sentence, it does not read that way for them.
Recall that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to David that from the house or lineage of David would come the eternal King who would rule forever. Second in command to the King in his household was the ‘asher ‘al-habayith or “master of the palace” who was given administrative charge of the house in the absence of the King.

The passage from Matthew where Jesus gives Peter the keys is a direct reference to the following verse from Isaiah:

Is 22:19-23
Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
“I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim’s shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.

I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family.”


The role of “master of the palace,” or “the one over the house” is not the role of the king, but of the one individual who has been charged by the king to deal with affairs that arise. The position of Peter was clearly intended by Jesus to fulfill the same role that “master of the house” did in the Kingdom of Israel following David since he used the same terms of responsibility that the position held that the Lord assigned to Eliakim through the words of Isaiah. The reference to the key, to opening and closing, loosing and binding, mean this position was not the royal kingship itself (thus, not Jesus) but of a designated servant who would have specific authority. A correlative question is: “Why would Jesus designate specific powers to Peter using this clear reference to Isaiah, but yet not intend the position to be carried forward through the life of the Church after Peter?”
 
No, the New Testament does not point explicitly to the Papacy as it is defined by the Church today. Instead, the idea of the Papacy is implicit in the New Testament and has been defined over time by the Tradition and on-going teaching of the Church.

The role of the Pope evolving before our eyes over the past month… BXVI’s abdication represents the end of the Papal Monarchy and Francis’ first few days point to another step towards collegiality and giant step back towards a structure that more closely resembles that of the early Church…
This is not the first time a pope has abdicated, so I don’t really understand the point about this being the end of the “Papal Monarchy.” As long as the Pope is not relinquishing his monarchical powers of the Catholic Church, then he is still a monarch.
 
What is missing here is the objective reality and early church documents of administration.

If you can only see Christianity existing on the pages of the New Testament, then it must have disappeared until the Reformation.

Where is the witness of faith centered on the Eucharist and Creed? Where is the witness of faith after the last page of Revelations??? So great is Christ and no witness after His death and resurrection, only in the Gospel and Epistles? No, Christ’s living revelation continues in His Church and the lives of the saints.

If people would study objective early church history, they would find that Rome always was the final voice in arbitrating.

The Church existed before Scripture. Scripture reduced to text and non authorized interpretation leads to personal interpretation condemned by 2 Peter 2; personal interpretation is most highly vulnerable to false, fragmented interpretation.

The essence of Catholicism is communion, and that is the presence of Christ we experience in the hierarchy, the apostolic interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the teaching mission of the Church to the world today. I do not see that presence of Christ in other forms of Christianity that speak so profoundly to the world. This voice and presence does not come from men, but from Christ present to the world today.
 
The way i see it, it doesnt really matter because if God didnt will it, then it wouldnt have happened and we wouldnt be talking about popes. But because we are, its Gods will 🙂
 
Archeology shows that there was an authoritative Pope.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“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 apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).
 
(by the way, why isn’t Jesus considered the first pope?)
This is like asking why the king is not his own prime minister. The Pope is Christ’s representative on earth, by virtue of the office of bishop, and first among his brother bishops by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome.
 
godisgood77, Regina Love, KathleenGee, The Blunt Brig, SteveVH,
thank you for your answers, but could you please reply simply “yes” or “no”, whether you agree with that text in my first post? Like R_C and JRKH did.
 
A question to Roman Catholics: do you agree with the following text?
“It is of course possible to read the New Testament so that it is not directed toward Pope; it does not point quite unequivocally to Pope. And if Orthodox Christians cannot see that the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 refer to Pope, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Pope. Pope brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the New Testament refers to Pope and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
It may not be totally explicit,but it sure is implicit. Scripture was not written to imply explicitly about everything. The complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine is not explicitly taught in the Scripture,but its there implicitly. The church is the one which had to explain and defend its complexity.
 
godisgood77, Regina Love, KathleenGee, The Blunt Brig, SteveVH,
thank you for your answers, but could you please reply simply “yes” or “no”, whether you agree with that text in my first post? Like R_C and JRKH did.
My answer is yes. I happen to agree with Pope Benedict XVI. His words do not mean that the Sacred texts do not refer to the Pope. He is simply acknowledging that because of the obscurity of the texts and depending upon one’s perspective, the words do not unequivocally point to the pope. In other words, it is understandable that one might come to this conclusion without malice, even though it is an erroneous conclusion.

I had a feeling that this was a set-up from the beginning. You are looking for Catholics who unkowingly will state that they disagree with their Pope, which is why you did not reference him as the author. Nice try.

:tsktsk:
 
A question to Roman Catholics: do you agree with the following text?
“It is of course possible to read the New Testament so that it is not directed toward Pope; it does not point quite unequivocally to Pope. And if Orthodox Christians cannot see that the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 refer to Pope, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Pope. Pope brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the New Testament refers to Pope and for saying, No, that is not what he said.”
The argument proves too much or not enough from an EO perspective. The New Testament far morely clearly illustrates the office of the papacy than it does the nature of the Trinity (One God, but three persons). In both cases, the Scripture clearly isn’t even trying to be a catechism on the subject. There were rather more than a few raucus bar fights in the early church before the matter of the Trinity was settled, but the existence of authentic bishops who took heretical positions on one aspect or another of the Trinity did not disprove the veracity of apostolic office.

There were similar fights over the papacy as well, but the schism of a minority of bishops who were aggravated by the arrogance of the Petrine officeholders (and perhaps a bit of their own pride, eh?) doesn’t disprove the biblical roots of the papacy any more than the Arians disprove the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity (or its roots in Scripture).

What the quote amounts to is an assertion that one can construct an argument from Scripture that there is no papacy because Scripture isn’t a catechism and was never intended to be. One can also construct an argument from Scripture (and people today ARE trying this) that consentual homosexual sex is neither condemned nor addressed by the bible. I’m not fooled by that argument either. 😉
 
The argument proves too much or not enough from an EO perspective. The New Testament far morely clearly illustrates the office of the papacy than it does the nature of the Trinity (One God, but three persons). In both cases, the Scripture clearly isn’t even trying to be a catechism on the subject. There were rather more than a few raucus bar fights in the early church before the matter of the Trinity was settled, but the existence of authentic bishops who took heretical positions on one aspect or another of the Trinity did not disprove the veracity of apostolic office.

There were similar fights over the papacy as well, but the schism of a minority of bishops who were aggravated by the arrogance of the Petrine officeholders (and perhaps a bit of their own pride, eh?) doesn’t disprove the biblical roots of the papacy any more than the Arians disprove the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity (or its roots in Scripture).

What the quote amounts to is an assertion that one can construct an argument from Scripture that there is no papacy because Scripture isn’t a catechism and was never intended to be. One can also construct an argument from Scripture (and people today ARE trying this) that consentual homosexual sex is neither condemned nor addressed by the bible. I’m not fooled by that argument either. 😉
Very well said. Thanks for this. 👍
 
godisgood77, Regina Love, KathleenGee, The Blunt Brig, SteveVH,
thank you for your answers, but could you please reply simply “yes” or “no”, whether you agree with that text in my first post? Like R_C and JRKH did.
the answer is no it does not.
 
My answer is yes. I happen to agree with Pope Benedict XVI. His words do not mean that the Sacred texts do not refer to the Pope. He is simply acknowledging that because of the obscurity of the texts and depending upon one’s perspective, the words do not unequivocally point to the pope. In other words, it is understandable that one might come to this conclusion without malice, even though it is an erroneous conclusion.

I had a feeling that this was a set-up from the beginning. You are looking for Catholics who unkowingly will state that they disagree with their Pope, which is why you did not reference him as the author. Nice try.

:tsktsk:
Does anyone have a link to the full text?
 
Vadim,

Were you trying to assert that Benedict’s statement undermined the legitimacy of the papacy? Do you agree that if this is true that the same argument undermines the certainty of the doctrine of the Trinity? Or is there a difference I’m missing?

As a catholic, I’m comfortable with the principle that Scripture isn’t a catechism and requires proper interpretation by those whom Christ gave the authority to interpret it correctly to resolve both questions (and rather many more).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top