T
Truthstalker
Guest
It seems strange that Paul had a perfect opportunity to state there was a singular Pope, knew Peter personally, but left this out of this passage.
What is the Catholic explanation?
- Status
What is the Catholic explanation?
M
mercygate
Guest
The office of the papacy requires that the Bishop of Rome be an evangelist, pastor, teacher, and he is, by definition, a successor to the Apostle Peter. The pope is a bishop, the pastor of the pastors. So what’s the question?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
If the Papacy is unique then Paul would have mentioned it specifically. Why didn’t he? Why no “who are all under Peter the Rock” or some allusion to it?
M
mercygate
Guest
If Jesus said Peter is the rock, then isn’t that good enough? Why woulld Paul have to repeat it? You are taking issue with the papacy yes?
A bishop (pastor, teacher, evangelist, ‘apostle’) is a bishop. The pope is a bishop. That’s as complicated as it gets. The papacy is a privileged bishopric because Our Lord set it up that way.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Well, you could argue that it isn’t pertinent to the flow of Paul’s argument, and the doctrinal development hadn’t occured yet, so that it was clear what the significance of Peter being the rock was, so it wasn’t stated. And not every doctrine is fully developed in every passage either. This passage isn’t particularly about Peter.
F
francesco920
Guest
I’m not sure I understand your point about Ephesians 4:11. I don’t see what it has to do with the papacy.
In general though, it makes no sense to say “well, X is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so X must not exist.” This is a pretty radical form of sola scriptura. The words “trinity” and “hypostatic union” are not found in the Bible and yet every Chalcedonian Christian (yes that includes Protestants) believes in them.
In general though, it makes no sense to say “well, X is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so X must not exist.” This is a pretty radical form of sola scriptura. The words “trinity” and “hypostatic union” are not found in the Bible and yet every Chalcedonian Christian (yes that includes Protestants) believes in them.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
A nice way of saying this is an argument from silence.I’m not sure I understand your point about Ephesians 4:11. I don’t see what it has to do with the papacy.
In general though, it makes no sense to say “well, X is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so X must not exist.” This is a pretty radical form of sola scriptura. The words “trinity” and “hypostatic union” are not found in the Bible and yet every Chalcedonian Christian (yes that includes Protestants) believes in them.
D
dbacks5439
Guest
First Truth, we must look at the social-historical context of Paul’s writing. Back then, there was a Pope, but the whole “idea”, i guess you could say, wasn’t fully developed. For example, the Church didn’t define that the Pope HAD to be in Rome, but traditionally he was. They realized that after a time, all of Peter’s successors were bishops of Rome, so we agreed that whoever is the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope. The word “Pope” wasn’t even used at that time, but developed later. So Paul was correct in using bishop, because that’s the only word used at that time. Peter was a bishop, and later in Church history, we named him and his successors as popes. All in all, just remember that we gave that title after Paul’s lifetime, and we must read scripture in the light of social-historical context to see what’s the writer is trying to say.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Not necessarily. You can also surmise that just as Paul was not talking about other subjects at this point, he didn’t have to be talking about the papacy. If something isn’t at issue at a particular time, why mention it?
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
My :twocents: …
It is important to remember that St Paul was writing for a particular church at a particular time. When St. Paul was writing, the apostles were still alive, except for St. James the son of Zebedee, and the apostles, including St. Peter, could collectively and individually teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. The council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15 is an example of their collective infallibility; the books of the New Testament are examples of their individual infallibility. In hindsight, it would have been nice if St Paul had mentioned the papacy but there seems to be little reason at that time for him to single out St. Peter among the apostles in his letter to the Ephesians since all the apostles were infallible and little reason for St. Paul to mention the post-St. Peter papacy since at that time St. Paul thought Jesus’ Second Coming was immanent. He thought that Christ would return in glory during his and presumably during St. Peter’s lifetime.
It is important to remember that St Paul was writing for a particular church at a particular time. When St. Paul was writing, the apostles were still alive, except for St. James the son of Zebedee, and the apostles, including St. Peter, could collectively and individually teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals. The council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15 is an example of their collective infallibility; the books of the New Testament are examples of their individual infallibility. In hindsight, it would have been nice if St Paul had mentioned the papacy but there seems to be little reason at that time for him to single out St. Peter among the apostles in his letter to the Ephesians since all the apostles were infallible and little reason for St. Paul to mention the post-St. Peter papacy since at that time St. Paul thought Jesus’ Second Coming was immanent. He thought that Christ would return in glory during his and presumably during St. Peter’s lifetime.
N
Nita
Guest
In addition to what’s already been said, I would just add that perhaps there was no reason to mention it; it was probably a fact that was known and accepted. It was normal in that culture to have a person in charge/highest rank (eg. religious - Jewish High Priest; secular - Ceasar). Paul would have been more likely to go into it if there was no one with final authority - to explain why the office was not needed.
Nita
Nita
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
While Peter was a Pope, had the authority of the Pope, and the office of the Pope, the word ‘Pope’ and the terminology associated with it is the result of theological advancement in later years.
At the time, Peter was alive, freshly Pope-ified (if thats a word) and a real true understanding was not yet revealed by God the Holy Ghost yet. It is entirely possible that Paul didnt quite understand the papacy himself, since the Church under persecution at that time was not free to teach doctrinal truths.
Paul was preserved from the error by the Holy Spirit, not transformed into the living library of all future Catholic doctrine.
M
Mintaka
Guest
If you’re part of a very small club, it might not be necessary to tell people who’s in charge. If the person in charge is only in charge until the real person in charge comes back – well, you might not want to refer to Peter as being in charge if Jesus might show up the next moment.
Of course, if you are running some kind of resistance organization, you should never ever mention the name of your leader in writing. Even if everybody in your organization knows it.
Of course, if you are running some kind of resistance organization, you should never ever mention the name of your leader in writing. Even if everybody in your organization knows it.
V
Veritas41
Guest
Because Paul isn’t discussing Church authority here, but the different roles God has given believers in the Church to build up the Church. The papacy would be included in “apostles” because the first pope was an apostle and subsequent popes successors of that apostle. Paul didn’t just teach with his letters, but also with oral teachings (2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Tim 2:1-2, 2 Thess. 2:15).
- Status