How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

[JonathonofOhio]

OK, I saw this after my last response, and this deserves a response, so…

My reply to John of Ohio, p. 3
Problems abound here:

1. First, is it really “the Catholic interpretation”? I ask because if there is a passage that Rome has defined, it is this one. The papacy rests on the claim that “this rock” refers to Peter and by extension his successors. But it sounds like you’re saying that Christ is “this rock.” That in deed would be an interpretation consistent with the “catholic tradition” (small c), as several church Fathers held that view, but it certainly isn’t the Roman Catholic tradition with respect to Peter.

The Church Fathers are Catholic so it IS the Catholic Interpretation, regardless of the opinions of modern day Catholics, who may have opinions based on a misunderstanding of what the Church has historically taught. You may also be getting misinformation from non-catholic sources who may also believe that Catholics worship the Pope, and so they say we put the pope in place of Christ and say we believe in a church with ‘2 heads’…but I say to that: Kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom (Isaiah 22:22), did the kingdom have two kings? Obviously not.

Now, just to be clear so others do no misunderstand me, I am not saying that Peter is movable, for how can he be moved? Whatever God joins, no man can take apart.

Mark 10:9
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (The church is commonly referred to also as the bride of Christ).

So in my saying that Peter is a movable rock or stone, I say that in regards to the nature of the man, not that this stone could ever be moved since it was Christ who has laid it upon Himself (the cornerstone; the foundation).

1. As mentioned earlier, virtually no scholar today believes that Matthew intended to distinguish Petros from petra on the basis of the meaning of the words (as the words are more likely synonyms); rather those few who do think Matthew intended a distinction do so simply on the fact that there are two distinct words.

Yes, everyone has their opinion. But the real question here is, does it even matter what language it is written in? It seems this whole ‘Catholics say Peter is the Rock’ is a straw man argument, because the Church has never infallibly taught that Jesus is not the Rock in Matthew. The Church has historically taught that Jesus is the foundation and Peter is the first stone laid upon the foundation. Now it can be said that the Church is built upon Peter, because when a structure is built, each stone is built upon the other. But by saying that, it does not make Peter the foundation.

Let me just close with an opinion. If you believe that the Jesus conferred on Peter (and all his successors) a “primacy of universal jurisdiction” over the entire church and that this also justifies the claims to infallibility, then you’re going to need far more proof than you’ve offered us so far.

The interpretation you offer us rests, not on necessary deductions, but rather upon inferences that are more or less probable. So at the end of the day, Rome’s claims to be able to give infallible doctrinal definitions is only as good as the argument that establishes Rome’s infallibility to begin with. But that argument largely rests on an interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 that is only more or less probable. Extraordinary claims (like infallibility and Roman primacy) require extraordinary evidence. But that evidence simply isn’t to be found in Matthew 16:18-19.

Why does infallibility bother you so much, that such extraordinary proof must be provided? If a man is appointed to be God’s chief steward, to handle matters of the Church, doesn’t it stand to reason that the Holy Spirit rests upon that man?

What constitutes ‘extraordinary proof’ to you? How is it that the extraordinary proof sits before you in the form a book, and you overlook it in your reasoning? If you do not believe in the infallibility of the pope then how can you believe in Peter’s teachings in Acts 1:15, Acts 1:18, Acts 15:1-23? Or how can you believe in Paul’s teachings, which were approved by Peter (Galatians 2:1-10), or how can you accept the Bible at all since it was put together by men through the guidance of the Holy Spirit? If it was not by infallibility that these scriptures were chosen and accepted for teaching, then how can you use them to argue your own view point?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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

Unfortunately I don’t have the time in the next few days to engage in a lengthy discussion about this topic, but perhaps I could contribute by recommending a book, Peter in the New Testament. It is based on papers and discussions by an ecumenical team of scholars. It shows that there is more going on than meets the eye in the NT treatment of the figure of Peter.

Hopefully if time permits I can jump back into the discussion.