How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

[LightBearer7]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

In Christ,
LightBearer

 

[Cruxis117]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

In Christ,
LightBearer

A good article from CAF which deals with the questions of Peter and the Rock, as well as the Fraternal Correction with Peter and Paul, is this:
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

A Scriptural argument is presented in one of my blog posts:

In this essay, I will lay out my argument for why Jesus instituted the Papacy in Matthew 16. To start, I will quote this verse. Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” These are what we could call the “key” verses which are used to establish three things:

1. Peter was given a new authority.
2. Peter’s authority would be what the Church is built upon.
3. Peter would be the temporal representative of Jesus as leader of the Church.

Now, by looking at the text, we see there are three things to note:

1. Simon is given a new name, Peter.
2. Simon (now Peter) is given the “keys of the kingdom.”
3. Simon is given the power to “bind and loose”, which was a term signifying authority [1].

Now, in order to establish that Peter was, as it is said, “prince of the Apostles”, then we must note a few interesting facts:

1. From the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation, Peter is mentioned 155 times, and the rest of the Apostles are mentioned a total of 130 times.
2. Numerous times in the Gospels, Peter speaks for the Apostles ( Matt. 18:21; 19:27; Mark 10:28, 11:21, Luke 8:45; 12:41, for example) and is the only one of the Apostles who receives divine revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:17)
3. Peter is almost always (with two exceptions) listed first when the Apostles are listed.
4. Peter is addressed by Jesus in personal moments before all of the other Apostles (Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31-32, John 21)

In Matthew 16, we see the first New Testament example of an Old Testament action: the giving of a new name. We know of two very, very good men who were given new names: Abraham (who was formerly Abram) and Israel (who was formerly Jacob). Though this is not the only time that someone is given a new name, I have looked (and if I have missed it, I am open to polite rebuke) and I have not found any other time where Jesus directly gave someone a new name, other than Peter. When a person has their name changed in the Scriptures, this was always a sign of a new characteristic of that person, of what they would be. For example, Abram became Abraham, which is “Father of Many Nations” (Genesis 17:5), and Jacob becomes Israel (Genesis 32:28; 35:10) which means “One who has wrestled with God”. And we see that what occurs is true, Abraham does become the Father of many nations, and all believers of Jesus Christ and also, that Jacob actually does wrestle with an Angel (God’s representative). What they are named is because of something that has happened or because of something which will happen. This is the same with Peter, who is also called Cephas (a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha, which simply means rock: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5 (which is an interesting verse, considering it makes a significant note of mentioning Cephas distinctly after he mentions the Lord); 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 1:18, 2:9,11,14).

Continued in Next Post.

 

[Cruxis117]

Continued from Previous Post.

To demonstrate that premises 1) Peter was given a new authority, 2) Peter and his authority would be what the Church would be built on and 3) Peter would be the representative of Jesus on earth, we must look at what Jesus is said to have given to Peter. We have shown that Simon was given the new name Peter (or Cephas) after Peter reveals that he has been given divine revelation, that God chose Peter to express that Jesus is the Son of God. We have shown the examples of others receiving names because of what happened/would happen, and at this point I would like to now point towards the “keys of the kingdom”. Where does this come from? I point now to Isaiah 22:

“Come, go to this steward,
To (X)Shebna, who is in charge of the royal household,
16 ‘What right do you have here,
And whom do you have here,
That you have (Y)hewn a tomb for yourself here,
You who hew a tomb on the height,
You who carve a resting place for [r]yourself in the rock?
17 ‘Behold, the LORD is about to hurl you headlong, O man.
And He is about to grasp you firmly
18 And roll you tightly like a ball,
To be (Z)cast into a vast country;
There you will die
And there your splendid chariots will be,
You shame of your master’s house.’
19 “I will (AA)depose you from your office,
And I will pull you down from your station.
20 “Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21 And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 “Then I will set the key of the)house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
23 “I will drive him like a)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a )throne of glory to his father’s house.

We know that Jesus is the rightful heir of the Davidic Kingdom, and this is why in the Scriptures he is called the Son of David (Matthew 22:42, for one example). And in the Davidic Kingdom, there was the steward, who was the King’s Representative. Though the key belonged to the King, it was to show that the steward had authority over the Kingdom. This has actually occurred earlier with the Scriptures, with Joseph, son of Israel, who is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. The Pharaoh makes him overseer over his kingdom (Genesis 41:41-44). This notion of the keys is directly given to Peter, as we can see by the way Matthew 16:18-19 is written: Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Unless we’re willing to convince ourselves that all of the Apostles were named Peter, we can see that this is speaking to Peter directly. Furthermore, we also know that later, in Matthew 18, Jesus speaks to the Apostles, giving them the ability to bind and loose. I do not believe that Jesus, or the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, would have made a repetitive statement for no reason, as if the reader has forgotten the giving of the power to bind and loose two chapters later. Thus, I see this as showing that it was Peter alone who was given the power to bind and loose first, as well as the keys of the kingdom. This would explain why Peter was mentioned so many times in the Scriptures, as well as why he was given the name change.

To summarize, I believe that Matthew 16:18 clearly shows that Peter was the Kepha or Rock from which Jesus would build his Church, it’s the only sensible meaning if we simply read scripture. Peter is mentioned many times, often as a representative of the Apostles, or in an individual context. Matthew 16 demonstrates that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which was given to the stewards of the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus would, as the new King from the line of David, give Peter the keys in order to shepherd his Church, which are his lambs and sheep (John 21). We know that it is only for Peter does Jesus pray for, that his faith would not fail, for him to strengthen his brothers (the Apostles) in Luke 22:32. The prominence of Peter is striking throughout the Scriptures, and in this way is rather clear, that Matthew 16 (particularly verses 18-19) express the new authority of Peter, which we see expressed by Pope Benedict XVI today.

This is the Scriptural argument that I (and many other much better Catholic Apologists than I) present for the Papacy.

 

[You]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

In Christ,
LightBearer

And the Apostles argued among themselves who would be the leader, and Christ said to them the greatest would be the least. From the very beginning the Apostles had an idea that one of them would be the leader. Christ said the leader would be the least among them, that was His idea of a leader for the Apostles.
St. Paul later gives a list of everything he wrote about in hierarchical order from least to greatest, here it is from greatest to least from his own perspective;

For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; for all are yours; [23] And you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

First
God, then
Christ
Things to come
Things present
Death
Life
The World
Cephas - [St. Peter]
Apollo
Paul

St. Paul names the first of the Apostles St. Peter.

‘Pope’ is simply a designation for the leader of the Apostles; a position of leadership which continues as a position regardless of the death of one leader - the Apostles will still need another leader.
And you are correct in saying that Christ said to Peter; you are rock and on this rock I will build my church… …and I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, …and whatsoever you bind… …whatsoever you loose.
It is therefore a position of leadership, authority and power given by Christ. And the leader is also the least of the Apostles.

 

[Jmd96]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope?

Firstly, you must understand that Catholic teachings, unlike Protestant teachings, aren’t wholly derived from scripture, there are other factors, namely Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium form the “3-legged table” that supports Catholic doctrine.

Being the Rock upon which the Church is built seems to me to be a clear statement of authority. Many Protestants see this and try desperately to prove that “this rock” refers solely to Peter’s profession of faith, or that Peter means “pebble”, so he could not be "this rock

And every pope since?

Apostolic succession follows logically. If Christ bothered choosing a leader for his Church, why would that position of leadership only last for first century AD?

Also, see Acts 1:12-25. Once Judas died, naturally the Apostles chose a replacement.

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope”

Because “pope” is simply a title, the position existed long before the title, much like people believed in the Trinity long before the word “Trinity” was even used.

NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS?

This is wrong. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also almost always listed first.

Matt. 16:19 - In Matt 18:18, all apostles received the power of binding and loosing, but only Peter receives the keys to the kingdom.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.”

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

There are many more examples, I hope these will suffice for the time being.

In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

Paul didn’t have a problem with Peter’s infallible teaching power, this has nothing to do with the Papacy.

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. -Matthew 23:2-3

Jesus recognized the teaching authority of the Pharisees, even if their example was awful.

 

[pablope]

I

In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

In Christ,
LightBearer

I will touch on this for now…here is the source:blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/

1. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)

There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. **It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. **Too many people shy away from speaking honestly to those in authority.

But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach (believe me, I know).

In the end, we show a far greater respect for authority by speaking clearly and directly to those in authority. False flattery is unhelpful, inappropriate silence does not serve, and speaking scornfully behind the backs of others is just plain sinful.

So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

 

[LightBearer7]

That is all well and good but I still see no evidence to suggest Peter was first in a line of popes, nor to say that he was in any way the head over the other apostles. Just because he was mentioned first or because he often spoke for them could mean nothing more than the fact that he was a leader of sorts among them, that he was a man given to great passion and fervor, and one who was bold and charismatic even as a simple fisherman. This also would explain Christ’s apparent “preference” for him; Christ was grooming him for his future ministry.

But PETER IS NEVER SAID TO POSSESS INFALLIBILITY, NEVER PROCLAIMED AS THE HEAD OF ALL CHRISTENDOM, AND NEVER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE BODY…even if Christ said he had keys to the kingdom, and the power to both bind and loose, he never used those “powers” or “gifts” in the way the Papacy has throughout history, and is supposed to according to accepted Church doctrine.

Also, a quick side note, Christ stands as the head of the Body, correct?

 

[pablope]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

In Christ,
LightBearer

In the Bible, and in those times, when a name is changed, it meant a change in status and a change in authority.

Significant name changes in the Bible:

Abram to Abraham…and see God’s command…Gen 17.5…5No longer shall your name be called Abram,[a] but your name shall be Abraham,** for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

Jacob to Israel…and Israel gave birth to the nation of Israel…Gen 32: 28…28Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel,[f] for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

Simon to Cephas/Peter or Rock…Matt 16…18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock** I will build my church, and the gates of hell[c] shall not prevail against it.

And Jesus’s words to Peter…“and on this rock** I will build my church”

And one other thing…in John 1…42He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas”******

 

[Jmd96]

That is all well and good but I still see no evidence to suggest Peter was first in a line of popes, nor to say that he was in any way the head over the other apostles. Just because he was mentioned first or because he often spoke for them could mean nothing more than the fact that he was a leader of sorts among them, that he was a man given to great passion and fervor, and one who was bold and charismatic even as a simple fisherman. This also would explain Christ’s apparent “preference” for him; Christ was grooming him for his future ministry. But PETER IS NEVER SAID TO POSSESS INFALLIBILITY, NEVER PROCLAIMED AS THE HEAD OF ALL CHRISTENDOM, AND NEVER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE BODY…even if Christ said he had keys to the kingdom, and the power to both bind and loose, he never used those “powers” or “gifts” in the way the Papacy has throughout history, and is supposed to according to accepted Church doctrine.

I could use your style for a moment,
THE BIBLE IS NEVER SAID TO BE OUR SOLE AUTHORITY.

but seriously, please refrain from typing in all-caps, it gives the impression, probably unintentional, that you’re shouting.

The problem is you’re following Sola Scriptura. Catholics don’t believe in that.

Give this page a shot, not all the examples are good, but a lot of them are:
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[Spirithound]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

It is difficult to know exactly what you are asking in your first paragraph, as there are several things which pertain to the pope. So I’ll move on to your second paragraph for the time being. Seeing “pope” in quotations indicates you’re asking about the specific word. Pope just means father, and the priests and bishops were certainly called fathers even in the early centuries. Even Paul assumes this title. As for when everybody started calling the bishop of Rome by a particular word that differed from how they referred to their local priest and bishop, I don’t know.

Peter’s precedence over the other apostles is pretty clear. He’s listed first in the majority of the lists of the apostles, Jesus promises to build His Church on him, and gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter is the first into the tomb of Jesus, and he has the prominent place at Pentecost. As for Paul confronting Peter, yes, he did that, but the Catholic Church has never taught that the pope can’t sin. The Church has never taught that the pope knows everything, but rather that in a very narrowly-defined set of circumstances, he can speak infallibly.

On that note, why does the pope get to be the interpreting authority of the Bible? Because the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. See, the pope doesn’t always, or even often, exercise his authority alone. The vast majority of the time, he speaks in union with the rest of the bishops of the Church. How else could the Bible be interpreted correctly?

 

[pablope]

That is all well and good b

But PETER IS NEVER SAID TO POSSESS INFALLIBILITY, NEVER PROCLAIMED AS THE HEAD OF ALL CHRISTENDOM, AND NEVER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE BODY…even if Christ said he had keys to the kingdom, and the power to both bind and loose, he never used those “powers” or “gifts” in the way the Papacy has throughout history, and is supposed to according to accepted Church doctrine.

Also, a quick side note, Christ stands as the head of the Body, correct?

That is because looking only at the Bible, which gives you only a scant record of the other actions of Peter. Some of them are also lost due to the ravages of time.

Here are some excerpts for the Epistle of Clement…considered Scriptural for the first 2 to 3 hundred years of Christianity, which will give you insight on the what the Apostles taught:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html

CHAPTER 42 – THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

CHAPTER 44 – THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

In Christ,
LightBearer

No offense, no problem.
Very simple.
You are trying to understand what is ununderstandable. How come from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope. The simple answer is: like it was. This is not a reasoning: “what is better: Peter, Paul or John?”; “why was so and other way?”; why is Peter the rock Peter the Pope?". Simply because God wanted that way.
God wanted that way and could have made 2or 3 Popes, no Pope, democracy, anarchy, whatever. What we see is history on the making, from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope. And only someone who is totally against the RCC will say that it is strange that Peter the Rock would become Peter the Pope for 2000 years. If this is not divine, I do not know what divine is. It crossed centuries of persecutions, scandals, corruption, division (3 Popes at one time!) that to be true you must say: Peter the Pope had to be Peter the rock. No human institution would survive this much.
In short: God wanted this way and we see it through History on the making…
We have the succesion of Popes since Peter, I am not familiar with the name it was called, Bishop of Rome or Pope, nevertheless the precedence of the Bishop of Rome was never opposed.
Always the Popes had critics, maybe Paul was the first but Paul had a utterly great respect for Peter, as he says, I know because I heard, they knew because they saw. Of course that clash was needed for Peter was in trouble for he wanted to keep the Jewish customs and Paul was against it.
No, the precedence of Peter is all along the Gospels. See when John and Peter ran to the empty tomb. John arrived first but let Peter go inside first. He is a typical leader, and I could show many passages for that.
Your quote:

idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

would not be mine. You put it a way that is not Caholic. The Pope is not against the People of God. Nor is he a dictator. Nor is he the only one who interprets the will of God. When the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary was declared, the Pope consulted the 2000 bishops and I think only a dozen were against. I know that some are personal decisions and sometimes they are polemic, but Jesus was polemic too. But I would say that 99 % of what He says it is common doctrine of the church. Now, the media portrays him as a dictator but what can we do. when he goes to some country the usually processions of gays, lesbians, victims of pedophilia, crazy tehologians come to be on the limelight. Why? Because the Media has learnt in University to portray both sides of a question, as if here there were 2 sides. When the Pope went to Madrid, I tell you, I could not see the ceremonies, but in the News, I saw more of the gays and the anit-papists than about the Pope.
That poisons the air and gives a totally wrong impression of the Pope.
I tell you, the foundation of the Church is the Pope. The scattering and implosion of the Protestantism is due to the lack of obedicence to the Pope. Once you decide that anyone can interpret, then you get into 30 thousand Protestant churches and 200 added each month. It is just absurd, knowing that there are 10 thousand religions in the World. without the Pope, if the Protestant churches do not come nack to the obedience of the Pope, I guess that in 500 years they will disappear.
Now, you say: “I do not understand”: I will tell you “Me neither, nor do I have to understand. I must obey, that is all”. They thing is that the essence of the problem, why did God wanted this system, this hierarchy, this solution of the government to the church, we will never know.
He wanted (from History we see that He wanted!!!), I obey. No existential bangs.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I will touch on this for now…here is the source:blog.adw.org/2010/10/what-st-paul-can-teach-us-about-respect-for-church-authority/

1. But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Gal 2:11-14)

There is something refreshing about this understanding of authority. **It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof. **Too many people shy away from speaking honestly to those in authority.

But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault. Peter had taught rightly of the equality of the Gentiles but drew back from keeping company with them. We as Catholics teach of the infallibility of the pope but we do not teach that he is impeccable (sinless). Even those who teach rightly (as Peter did) sometimes struggle to fully live the truth they preach (believe me, I know).

In the end, we show a far greater respect for authority by speaking clearly and directly to those in authority. False flattery is unhelpful, inappropriate silence does not serve, and speaking scornfully behind the backs of others is just plain sinful.

So Paul demonstrates a sort of refreshing honesty with Peter here. He acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

I didn’t see here any mention of what this relates to. It relates to Act 15, in which a matter is brought before the church that Christian converts must first be circumcised before becoming Christian (newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm). After much debate (Verse 7), Peter stands up and proceeds to make an infallible statement (Verse 8+) as evident by the fact that after he is done talking the matter is no longer discussed. Paul mentions correcting Peter, because Peter was going against something he already infallibly ruled on.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

That is all well and good but I still see no evidence to suggest Peter was first in a line of popes, nor to say that he was in any way the head over the other apostles. Just because he was mentioned first or because he often spoke for them could mean nothing more than the fact that he was a leader of sorts among them, that he was a man given to great passion and fervor, and one who was bold and charismatic even as a simple fisherman. This also would explain Christ’s apparent “preference” for him; Christ was grooming him for his future ministry.

But PETER IS NEVER SAID TO POSSESS INFALLIBILITY, NEVER PROCLAIMED AS THE HEAD OF ALL CHRISTENDOM, AND NEVER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE BODY…even if Christ said he had keys to the kingdom, and the power to both bind and loose, he never used those “powers” or “gifts” in the way the Papacy has throughout history, and is supposed to according to accepted Church doctrine.

Also, a quick side note, Christ stands as the head of the Body, correct?

Apparently you never read Acts 15 in which it was Peter who decided for the whole church, after hearing a lot of arguing, that circumcision was not necessary in order to become a Christian. After he made the ruling no one dared to say a word, because when Peter spoke, he was speaking infallibly (that is, the Holy Spirit was speaking through him). And this is evident by the fact that later we read in the letter of Paul to the Galatians (Chapter 2) that Paul corrected Peter AFTER the council of Jerusalem when Peter tries to compel gentiles to live like Jews.

Furthermore, you can clearly see in both Galatians 1 and 2 that Paul went to see Peter (Cephas) twice to confirm that he was preaching the same gospel (and not his own or a false one). He demonstrates here that the authority he has in preaching the gospel comes from the church, not from himself. In naming Peter (Cephas) here, he is demonstrating that Peter is the leader of the Church, otherwise why would he bother naming Peter if Peter had no real authority? In his account of his first visit of fourteen days, he clearly states it was Peter he went to see, but that he also happened to see James while he was there (none of the others). Why is it significant that he saw Peter (Cephas)? The only answer is that Peter was the leader of the Church and had authority given to him by Christ, otherwise there would have been no point in Paul explaining this to them in order to prove that he had authority when it came to preaching the gospel. Even though Jesus appeared to Paul directly, Paul still submitted to the authority of the Church, and recognized Peter as the leader.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ’s statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church…but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?

As with most adherents to the modern new wind of doctrines of men known as Sola Scriptura you function under the errant notion that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found in the Bible when, in fact, that is not itself a Biblical doctrine. It has been discussed/debated quite a bit, and yet no scripture can be found to support it. Note the following 2 threads for example.

• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
• It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

First, please do not post in all caps as that is considered shouting. You can underline, bold, or italicize and get the same emphasis without being rude, okay?

As for Petrine primacy, why is it that virtually every list of the twelve in the New Testament names Peter first. which, in the custom of the time does indeed indicate primacy of place. There is substantially more to this. See the following articles.

• Origins of Peter as Pope
• Peter’s Authority
• Peter’s Primacy
• Peter the Rock
• Was Peter in Rome?

I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.

In Christ,
LightBearer

None taken. Stick around and you will learn a lot that you don’t know.

 

[pablope]

I didn’t see here any mention of what this relates to. It relates to Act 15, in which a matter is brought before the church that Christian converts must first be circumcised before becoming Christian (newadvent.org/bible/act015.htm). After much debate (Verse 7), Peter stands up and proceeds to make an infallible statement (Verse 8+) as evident by the fact that after he is done talking the matter is no longer discussed. Paul mentions correcting Peter, because Peter was going against something he already infallibly ruled on.

Hi…Jonathan…my post was in reply to the OP’s question on the fraternal correction of Peter’s behavios by Paul in the event described in Galatians. The OP thinks or supposes that since Peter was rebuked by Paul, Peter is not fit to be pope.

 

[Abu]

LightBearer7
I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture.
Another small side question, why is it that it wasn’t until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a “pope” and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the “original Pope.” How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?

Simple – it is clear from Scripture that Jesus established His Church on His First Vicar Peter.
Jesus specifically entrusts Peter with His authority and confers infallibility:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

This truism sums up the reality well:
Giovanni Perrone, S.J., a theologian of Vatican I fame, was on most biblical grounds when he affirmed that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible. Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p169-70].

In And On This Rock, Fr Stanley Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 117, Fr Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century!

Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility of the Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ’s Church, from the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

 

[Perplexity]

Take a relatively close hypothesis to that of the papacy, but different enough to be incompatible and ask whether the verses provided for the latter confirm it over the former. When you reason like this, there’s little that can be said to demonstrate a papacy. The same thing goes for the ECF’s. I wish more would reason like this

 

[You]

The Apostles were never divided on any doctrine, and when Peter spoke he spoke for all. If all Christians were never divided on any doctrine there would be no need for a Pope. As it happens even in Apostolic times there were to be heretics, and knowing this Christ must have given Peter and Peters office a special help so that no matter what wind of doctrine might be blowing all would know that where Peter was there was the Church founded by Christ. Peter you are rock, and on this rock I will build My church.

 

[promethius]

Take a relatively close hypothesis to that of the papacy, but different enough to be incompatible and ask whether the verses provided for the latter confirm it over the former.

Except this doesn’t remotely approach a logical sort of argumentation method. However, can you provide an incompatible but close example of an alternate theory which is satisfied by scripture?

When you reason like this, there’s little that can be said to demonstrate a papacy. The same thing goes for the ECF’s. I wish more would reason like this

except, again, we don’t see the use of ONLY the Bible as a source of information until, what, the 18th century when Sola Scriptura was invented? Sacred tradition itself has something to say on the ambiguity you want to inject on the scriptures (and it says the papacy is the correct interpretation to any ambiguity).