Does the New Testament point unequivocally to Pope?

[livingwordunity]

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”

Christ tells us in the Bible to go to the church for resolving disputes. In a general way, Christ gives all of his authority to the Church, and he gave his Church apostles which were the first bishops. And Christ gave the keys of authority to Peter alone. Scripture and the early Church fathers show apostolic succession.

by the way, why isn’t Jesus considered the first pope?

The name “Pope” is a less official title. All the word “Pope” means is “Papa”. One of the Pope’s official titles is “Vicar of Christ” or “Servant of the Servants of God”. It wouldn’t make any sense to call Christ the “Vicar of Christ” since it would be like calling him the Vicar of himself.

 

[PJM]

=Vadim244;10497652]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.”

YES IT DOES

READ the following in the sequence given against the background of provable historical Traditions:

By the point of humanites Creation God has with unerring consistancy chosen MEN to lead His “chosen People” [OT] and "church’ [SINGULAR] [NT]

Use of “caps” for emphasis NOT shouting

From Adam, Noah, Abraham, jacob, Moses, David the Prophets & Judges [ALL MALE], Jesus HIMSELF and John the Baptist leading to PETER: [One and Only One Male LEADER at a time]

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you”

MATTHEW 10:1-8 ;16:15-19; MT. 18:18; MK.16;14-17; MT.28;16-20

cf. Mt. above
TO YOU PETER I YOUR PERFECT GOD GIVE THE KEYS [ALL OF THEM] TO MY KINGDOM IN HEAVEN [AND THE GATES OF HELL AND OTHER COMPETING RELIGIONS WILL NOT OVERPOWER IT EVER!.. AND TO YOU AND YOUR SUCCESSORS [BY ABSOLUTE NECESSITY WHEN JUST BEFORE PARTING EARTH JESUS EXPANDED THE MISSION TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE EARTH; WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SUCCESSION. [Mk. 14:14-17; & Mt. 28:18-20]

Further I would point out that the term “bible” is not found in the BIBLE either.

I DISAGREE with your Orthodox thought.

A POPE Existed for ONE THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THEY CHOOSE TO SEPERATE FROM ROME AND THE POPE.

PLEASE check out this Historical proof.

http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

God Bles,
pat/PJM

 

[Literalist]

Simple answer to the OP:

The answer is absolutely not

The Lord asked Peter who He was … and Peter replied …" the Son of the living God"

This belief that Peter had revealed to him about the Lord is the necessary foundation of belief upon which the Lord builds His church [John 3:16-18]

The Lord Himself is the “rock” [chief corner stone] upon which He builds His church

Peter was to reveal and this truth to others, and those who believed his message became members of the body of Christ and it is the Lord who builds

Peter’s preaching of the gospel of Christ resulted in the adding of many, and his witness ascribed in the written Word has resulted in adding many more who have heard and have read read Peter’s testimony up to this very day

Peter was a Jewish disciple of the Lord and at first preached primarily to the his Jewish kinship … and after it was revealed to him that Gentiles could also be saved he then preached the message to them

It is the RCC that has developed the idea that Peter was the first “Pope” after the fact … he was not a Pope at all, but a disciple of Jesus Christ just like all of the other Apostles

There is no scripture in the Bible that states the idea that Peter was the first Pope of the RCC organization … a lofty idea, but not true … Peter was a fallible human just like any other human … only the Lord Jesus Christ is infallible

[Matthew 16:18; 1 Peter 2:1-10]

 

[Gara3987]

**Part Ⅰ
**
First and foremost, the term Pope comes from the Greek πάππας, and is basically a child’s word for father. In the early Church, the title was generally used in the east and was applied to all of the Bishops. Foregoing the history behind this term, let us examine it in the present. In the case of today, for the western Church, the term Pope is used only for the Bishop of Bishops (the Primary Bishop of Rome). The Authority of the Bishop of Bishops is well within the Holy Scriptures. Not only that, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop (Roman Patriarch), was recognized by all during Post-Apostolic times.

Something which needs to be understood, in Matthew xvi Jesus is actually referring to the prophecy of Isaiah. In doing so, He is fulling the prophetic imagery of the prophet Isaiah. The prime minister, which Isaiah was referring to the primacy and office of St. Peter.

And it shall be in that day: I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Hellcias, and will cloth him with thy coat, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: & he shall open, and there shall be none to shut: and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. And I will fasten him as a pin in a sure place, & he shall be for a throne of Glory to the house of his father. And they shall hang upon him all the Glory of his fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel from vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. In that day saith the Lord of hosts, shall the pin be taken away, that was fastened in the sure place: and that which hung thereon, shall be broken, and fall, and perish, because our Lord hath spoken. [Isa. Xxii. 20-25]

**Ver. 20. **Eliacim, who had been displaced, ver. 15. He acted as regent after the departure of Manasses, who always followed his counsels at his return, Judith iv. 5. The priesthood was not then incompatible with civil and military functions.
Ver. 21. Girdle, the badge of power, Job xii. 18.
**Ver. 22. **Shoulder. Here the marks of dignity were worn. Eliacim was appointed master of the palace, over all the other servants. (Calmet) — Thus we may gather what power Christ conferred on St. Peter, when he gave him the keys of heaven, Matthew xvi. 19., and Apocalypse iii. 7. (Haydock)
Ver. 23. Peg, on which whatever is placed shall be secure, 1 Esdras ix. 8.
Ver. 24. House. He shall be the ornament of the priesthood. —Music. All affairs in church and state shall be at his disposal.
Ver. 25. Fall. Sobna shall lose all his employments, and ruin others. (Calmet)

**Some actual parallels between Matthew xvi., & Isaiah xxii:
**
There were successors of the prime minister in David’s household:
Isa xxii. 15; 1 Kings iv. 6, & xviii. 3; 2 Kings x. 5, xv. 5, xviii. 18

Full authority is given to the prime minister:
Isa xxii. 22; Mat xvi. 19; Rev iii. 7

Further teaching of the authority of the prime minister:
Mat xxiv. 45; Luk 12:42; Gen xli. 40; Gen xliii. 19

**As for historical evidence of the Primacy of the Pope:
**These websites, I was fortunate enough to stumble upon, and I would like to share this information.

St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” (Sermon 131:10)
St. Athanasius, Arianism, and the Holy See
St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter
St. Jerome and Rome

Another interesting point that is made by Father Canon Francis Ripley in his book “This is The Faith : A Complete Explanation of the Catholic Faith” *Chapter 18 : The Supremacy of the Pope (Part II)., page 164-166:

About the year 95 A.D., St. Clement, the third successor of St. Peter in the see of Rome, found it necessary to write to the Catholics of Corinth, telling them to receive back the bishops whom a troublesome faction among them had expelled. *Throughout the letter he uses a tone of authority, which even such a staunch Protestant as Lightfoot acknowledges to be “the first step towards Papal domination.” *“If any man,” says St. Clement, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let the, [sic] understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger . . . Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Ghost.” (Ep. 59:70). *The following facts should be considered in regard to this Epistle of Clement:

 

[Gara3987]

Part Ⅱ

1. Reference is made to “the good Apostles,” Peter and Paul, those pillars of the Church, martyrs, who gave such good example to the Romans.
2. The whole Epistle is an implicit manifestation of Rome’s consciousness of possession of the Primacy in the Church, for
3. a) instead of offering excuses for interfering in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, Clement begins by apologizing for his delay in writing. *Unless it was his duty to write, there would be no reason for apologizing.
4. b) Clement threatens, as we have quoted above, and demands obedience.
5. St. John was actually alive at Ephesus at the time. *If the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which was far less accessible than Ephesus, it proves that they recognized the authority of Clement over even an Apostle; if Clement’s action were spontaneous, it shows that the Church at Rome was already conscious of a superior and exceptional authority.
6. The letter was welcomed by the Catholics of Corinth, which proves that they did not think that Rome had interfered unlawfully or exceeded her power. *In fact, the Corinthians put this Epistle of St. Clement on almost the same level as the Scriptures, and for a century it was read in the churches.
   The Cambridge Ancient History, commenting on the Epistle of St. Clement, says: “The Roman community’s sense of its own importance is nevertheless unmistakable, and it finds expression in the whole tenor of the letter. *Rome imparts profitable instruction to the Corinthian community and regards this as her right and her duty: but one gets the impression that the Romans would have been greatly surprised had Corinth, let us say, in similar circumstances, dispatched such a letter of admonition to Rome.” (XII, 530).
   Even Bishop Lightfoot [1828-1889, bishop of Durham] had to admit that three points concerning the early Roman See are clear:
7. Our Lord certainly conferred a primacy among the Apostles on St. Peter.
8. St. Peter visited Rome and was martyred there;
9. At the end of the first century, the Roman Church held a *primacy over all other churches–a primacy which ever grew and developed as the ages ran on. (Cf. Abbot Butler, Religions of Authority pp. 113-117).

 

[MartinJordan]

Simple answer to the OP:

The answer is absolutely not

The Lord asked Peter who He was … and Peter replied …" the Son of the living God"

This belief that Peter had revealed to him about the Lord is the necessary foundation of belief upon which the Lord builds His church [John 3:16-18]

You need to be corrected here. Jesus didn’t ask Peter who he was. Jesus asked Simon Bar Jonah. Thus AFTER Simon replied, Jesus **changes **his name to Petros or Cephas (which means rock).

Could it be possible that Jesus wants to give him a new name maybe because Jesus is leaving the material earth for a while till his next return in Glory? Maybe for Peter to be a visible rock to build up the Church (guided by the Holy Spirit) till the eventual return of the Rock?

The Lord Himself is the “rock” [chief corner stone] upon which He builds His church

Let’s see… "You are rock and on this rock, I will build My Church.

Peter was to reveal and this truth to others, and those who believed his message became members of the body of Christ and it is the Lord who builds

Amen. Guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peter’s preaching of the gospel of Christ resulted in the adding of many, and his witness ascribed in the written Word has resulted in adding many more who have heard and have read read Peter’s testimony up to this very day

Agreed. Again however, I must add guided by the Holy Spirit.

Peter was a Jewish disciple of the Lord and at first preached primarily to the his Jewish kinship … and after it was revealed to him that Gentiles could also be saved he then preached the message to them

No problem here either.

It is the RCC that has developed the idea that Peter was the first “Pope” after the fact … he was not a Pope at all, but a disciple of Jesus Christ just like all of the other Apostles

A source will be good for better analysis of your point here. Otherwise this will merely be your own opinion.

There is no scripture in the Bible that states the idea that Peter was the first Pope of the RCC organization … a lofty idea, but not true … Peter was a fallible human just like any other human … only the Lord Jesus Christ is infallible

[Matthew 16:18; 1 Peter 2:1-10]

There are several other Biblical verses you are missing. What about John 21 about Feed my Sheep for instance?

You need more substantial biblical verses that deny Peter was the first Pope. Atleast the ones you quoted are clearly not enough.

MJ

 

[joe370]

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.”

OK. So what exactly is he saying? Let’s rule out the Pope for the moment, for the sake of argument in spite of the fact that Peter is the only one being addressed. Go!

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, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20**

 

[joe370]

I
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.

Ok. So you do not see Jesus saying anything important in terms of Simon, renamed Kepha being the chief shepherd e.g. the pope which is just an affection title, even, in spite of the fact that Jesus said that He would build His church on Kepha, forever protecting His church built on Kepha, from the gates of hell. Let’s forget all of that; you give me your assessment of the those verses?

 

[joe370]

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?”

Waiting for someone to respond to this post. After all it was this line of reasoning that helped me resolve the matter.

 

[PJM]

=Literalist;10513908]Simple answer to the OP:

The answer is absolutely not

The Lord asked Peter who He was … and Peter replied …" the Son of the living God"

This belief that Peter had revealed to him about the Lord is the necessary foundation of belief upon which the Lord builds His church [John 3:16-18]

STOP right here!

Here’s what it clearly does say]

AND THIS IS FROM THE KING JAMES BIBLE

"And Simon Peter answered and said , Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus[Our Perfect GOD] answered and said unto him,** Blessed art thou , Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. **

The Lord Himself is the “rock” [chief corner stone] upon which He builds His church

Eph. 2: [20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: [21] In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [22] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit"

CHRIST is the Corner Stone w/o which regarless of the ROCK foundation, cannot stand. BUT Peter is the ORIGINAL Perfect God chosen ''Rock" foundation and LEADER of the only Church founded by God personally.

Jn. 21: 14-17 "This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his [APOSTLES]disciples, after he was risen from the dead. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep

Peter was to reveal and this truth to others, and those who believed his message became members of the body of Christ and it is the Lord who builds

It is the RCC that has developed the idea that Peter was the first “Pope” after the fact … he was not a Pope at all, but a disciple of Jesus Christ just like all of the other Apostles

There is no scripture in the Bible that states the idea that Peter was the first Pope of the RCC organization … a lofty idea, but not true … Peter was a fallible human just like any other human … only the Lord Jesus Christ is infallible

REALLY? signin to gmail.com - Google Search

So your explaination of these pasages is:shrug:

Mt. 10: And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. ] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother…Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received,

At least Four times Jesus extends His Godly Powers and Authority on to the Apostles LED by Peter.

Mt. 10: 1-8
Mt. 28:18-19
Jn.17:18
Jn. 20: 21-22 "He said therefore to them again: … As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

WHY?

Because Infalliblity is absolutely essential to Teach Christ Faith and fulfill the expanded mandate to " And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [Going therefore, **teach ye **all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Jn.14: 16-17 "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you AMEN!

Filled in John 20:21 above.

God Bless you,
PJM

 

[Vadim244]

Waiting for someone to respond to this post. After all it was this line of reasoning that helped me resolve the matter.

Both St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria in their commentaries on Isaiah do not refer this fragment (Is 22:19-23) to the Pope or to the Apostle Peter. They refer this fragment to Jesus Christ. They both say, that the name Eliakim means Resurrection of God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Both St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria in their commentaries on Isaiah do not refer this fragment (Is 22:19-23) to the Pope or to the Apostle Peter. They refer this fragment to Jesus Christ. They both say, that the name Eliakim means Resurrection of God.

Are you claiming, then, that Christ is not the King, the descendent of David, destined to rule over Israel and mankind, but instead only, like Eliakim, the chief stewart?

Could you provide actual texts to demonstrate your claim?

 

[joe370]

Both St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria in their commentaries on Isaiah do not refer this fragment (Is 22:19-23) to the Pope or to the Apostle Peter. They refer this fragment to Jesus Christ. They both say, that the name Eliakim means Resurrection of God.

Quotes please?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Both St. Jerome and St. Cyril of Alexandria in their commentaries on Isaiah do not refer this fragment (Is 22:19-23) to the Pope or to the Apostle Peter. They refer this fragment to Jesus Christ. They both say, that the name Eliakim means Resurrection of God.

Eliakim means “God will raise up,” which could refer to the fact that he was raised up to take the place of Shebna as master of the house (prime minister in the kingdom.)

The following is a good source for Biblical passages that support papal succession.
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[KathleenGee]

Why then does the Church have the history of popes where there was no broken link…and the Orthodox themselves for 1,000 years had the papacy?

The response to Sacred Scriptures is the Living Revelation lived out in the Church.

Jesus Christ has died, risen from the dead and glorified in heaven, to nurture the Church here below.

Now it is time for humankind to respond to the Lord and live in Him.

Living in Him is the response now for all Christians. And so you no longer just look at Sacred Scriptures…but faith lived out in response to Jesus Christ in the Church.

We are now the living pages of the New Testament. You cannot keep faith in a book form, but in documented history of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tunesmith]

It seems that this evolving ministry of head bishop has evolved into something other than that which was established by the apostles.

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a statement that can be trusted: If anyone sets his heart on being a bishop, he desires something excellent. 2 A bishop must have a good reputation. He must have only one wife, be sober, use good judgment, be respectable, be hospitable, and be able to teach. 3 He must not drink excessively or be a violent person, but he must be gentle. He must not be quarrelsome or love money. 4 He must manage his own family well. His children should respectfully obey him. 5 (If a man doesn’t know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a new Christian, or he might become arrogant like the devil and be condemned. 7 People who are not Christians must speak well of him, or he might become the victim of disgraceful insults that the devil sets as traps for him.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

Acts 10:24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”