How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

[promethius]

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.

Okay, let’s look at Matthew 16…

• Simon alone is renamed to Kepha (the rock).
• Simon is told that he is the rock on which the church will be built, hence the importance of noting the fact that Jesus took the disciples to Caesarea Philippi, at the site of the pagan temple built by Herod on the (literal) rock of Mt Hermon. Jesus is contrasting the temporary pagan temple against HIS eternal church built on Peter as the enduring rock. The rock of Peter can only be enduring if this refers to an ongoing office, rather than a specific person.
• To demonstrate that this is an office, Jesus appoints Peter as steward of the Kingdom of Christ using nearly the exact same words as God used to appoint Eliakim in Isaiah 22. This is because just as the kingdom of David required a steward to represent and be the voice of the king, so the kingdom of Christ requires a steward in the office of Peter.
• Christ reveals that Peter literally hears the truth which God spoke to him.

Let’s look at a little else:

• Peter is mentioned 150 times in the Bible. The rest of the apostles combined are mentioned 130 times. Protestants tell us that is a coincidence
• Peter is mentioned first out of all the apostles with only two exceptions. Protestants tell us this is coincidence.
• Peter INVALIDATES a deuterocanonical requirement (kosher diet). Only God or one who speaks with His authority can invalidate God’s laws. Protestants tell us this is not an example of an infallible teaching… even though they follow this teaching despite the fact that Peter had no personal authority to make it.
• Peter is rebuked by Paul for a personal sin. Protestants tell us this lack of impeccability means Peter had no infallible teaching authority, even though impeccability and infallibility are two, completely unrelated subjects.
• St Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the corinthians. Despite the fact that he wasn’t even an apostle, the Corinthians treated his letter as scripture for more than 200 years. They ascribed THAT much authority to the Bishop of Rome. Protestants, however, tell us that there’s no historical example of the primacy of Rome.

All in all, the primacy of Peter and the office of stewardship on which the papacy is built can only be denied through ignoring scripture and history.

 

[Church_Militant]

BTW, why would the title and leadership of the Pope have to be “advocated by scripture” when there is no passage in scripture that remotely even infers that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found there? There is no such scripture, and therefore no such mandate except in the errant modern new winds of doctrines of men.

 

[Perplexity]

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?

errm, it’s known as Bayesian reasoning and is employed in the sciences and most excitingly in philosophy of religion (God’s existence, etc.).

But, sure. Take the EO hypothesis which may be stated in the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one…” - A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1. Emphasis mine.

Now, take any text offered as evidence for the papacy and see whether it confirms the papacy over that ^. Good luck.

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).

I don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition is far too riddled with problems to be of any help to the Catholic.

 

[Spirithound]

Take the EO hypothesis which may be stated in the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one…” - A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1. Emphasis mine.

Now, take any text offered as evidence for the papacy and see whether it confirms the papacy over that ^. Good luck.

Okay, let’s look at Matthew 16…

I think Promethius said it all.

 

[promethius]

errm, it’s known as Bayesian reasoning and is employed in the sciences and most excitingly in philosophy of religion (God’s existence, etc.).

I’m very familiar with Bayesian INFERENCE, considering I have a degree in physics. What I meant about that being an argument, however, is that one cannot discount one probability simply because another exists.

Namely, even if some other option exists whose probability tends towards 1, that does not invalidate any other option which has a probability tending towards 1. So we can argue that there is an alternative theory which satisfies scripture… but even if we find one, that doesn’t mean that the argument for the papacy is false… only that both are POSSIBLE. Then we play the statistics game of which is probable.

But, sure. Take the EO hypothesis which may be stated in the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one…” - A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1. Emphasis mine.

Now, take any text offered as evidence for the papacy and see whether it confirms the papacy over that ^. Good luck.

What if I put another quote from St Cyprian which clarifies how Parker has deviously cut away the context of St Cyprian to make him say that which he never intended? Would Saint Cyprian’s own works refute what you’ve just claimed?
“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). *
Oops… looks like your alternate bayesian probability just went up in smoke in a haze of contextual quoting from the source… so the probability, based on the “proof” you’ve offered, of this other option is 0, meaning the papacy still stands as the only option with a probability approaching 1.

Want to try another example?

 

[Perplexity]

I’m very familiar with Bayesian INFERENCE, considering I have a degree in physics. What I meant about that being an argument, however, is that one cannot discount one probability simply because another exists.

Namely, even if some other option exists whose probability tends towards 1, that does not invalidate any other option which has a probability tending towards 1. So we can argue that there is an alternative theory which satisfies scripture… but even if we find one, that doesn’t mean that the argument for the papacy is false… only that both are POSSIBLE. Then we play the statistics game of which is probable.

I’m not sure how you got any of this…if the evidence confirms 2 hypotheses just as well, then it can’t be said to favor one over the other.

What if I put another quote from St Cyprian which clarifies how Parker has deviously cut away the context of St Cyprian to make him say that which he never intended? Would Saint Cyprian’s own works refute what you’ve just claimed?
“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). *

I’m sorry was this supposed to suggest my understanding of Cyprian is erroneous?

All historians (Catholics, Protestants, EO’s etc.) agree that Cyprian didn’t believe in the papacy. Here’s just 1 Catholic historian who says as much:

“Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought…Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.” - Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48.

I’m always shocked when Catholics will cite Cyprian as a support for the papacy given his explicit repudiation of such notions.

Oops… looks like your alternate bayesian probability just went up in smoke in a haze of contextual quoting from the source… so the probability, based on the “proof” you’ve offered, of this other option is 0, meaning the papacy still stands as the only option with a probability approaching 1.

Want to try another example?

Yeah…I doubt you’re familiar with this issue. The very fact that you thought Cyprian was supportive at all of the papacy tells me you’ve mined this quote, probably from Peter and the Keys.

 

[promethius]

I’m not sure how you got any of this…if the evidence confirms 2 hypotheses just as well, then it can’t be said to favor one over the other.

What you said is: “When you reason like this, there’s little that can be said to demonstrate a papacy”
When you reason like this, there’s little that can be said to demonstrate a papacy

However, that is not the case with a Bayesian probability. Regardless of whether or not we find another option whose probability tends to 1, that does nothing to invalidate what can be said in favor of the papacy (whose probability also tends to 1). All it says is that there may be more than 1 valid interpretation.

I’m sorry was this supposed to suggest my understanding of Cyprian is erroneous?

No, it appears that you think the catholic church is organized like a corporation with the pope as the CEO. It is not your understanding of Cyprian that is necessarily incorrect, although it still could be. It is your understanding of Catholic teaching regarding the pope that is lacking.

Namely, the church teaches the primacy, not supreme authority, of Peter and His chair. Cyprian teaches the same thing… and even though he contended with Rome while Pope Stephen disagreed, he contended on the basis that no infallible statement had been released by Pope Stephen… and we’ll note that the doctrinal dispute was settled and the African Church did eventually accept the position which Rome had taught.

All historians (Catholics, Protestants, EO’s etc.) agree that Cyprian didn’t believe in the papacy.

ALL historians? Are you sure you want to make that claim, since all I have to do is find one historian who disagrees in order to prove that claim to be the exageration that it is…

Here’s just 1 Catholic historian who says as much:

“Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought…Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.” - Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48.

Unfortunately Michael Winter’s book is not currently published. Furthermore, he has no biography readily available which gives any credentials to his authenticity, either as a historian or as a catholic.

However, even assuming he is both… does he have the imprimateur required to write “as a catholic”? Without such a thing, his opinion is no more valid in the eyes of the church than the writings of the lunatics in “catholics for choice” or “womenpriests.org”

Saying you are catholic does not mean you speak for catholicism.

I’m always shocked when Catholics will cite Cyprian as a support for the papacy given his explicit repudiation of such notions.

You might feel shocked because you think of the Pope in different terms than catholics do. The chair of Peter is a seat which has PRIMACY, exactly as St Cyprian said. Just because you don’t understand the church teaching on the papacy does not mean that St Cyprian magically is anti-catholic. It just means that he, you, and I all reject the notion that the pope is a holy-CEO of the God Company. We agree on that subject, but now can we do away with the strawman and recongize that Cyprian still regarded the chair of peter as having primacy?

Yeah…I doubt you’re familiar with this issue. The very fact that you thought Cyprian was supportive at all of the papacy tells me you’ve mined this quote, probably from Peter and the Keys.

Actually, I read the document. It’s wonderfully available on the Catholic Encyclopedia, in it’s entirety. You can read it too! It’s here:
newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

You can also read the entire proceedings of the seventh council of Carthage here:
newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

Or you can read Cyprian’s letter to Pope Stephen, asking for guidance, here:
newadvent.org/fathers/050666.htm

I’ve been reading the actual documents. Have you?

 

[Perplexity]

However, that is not the case with a Bayesian probability. Regardless of whether or not we find another option whose probability tends to 1, that does nothing to invalidate what can be said in favor of the papacy (whose probability also tends to 1). All it says is that there may be more than 1 valid interpretation.

In saying little can be said to demonstrate the papacy I wasn’t claiming the Roman interpretation was improbable, I was simply saying it is no more probable than other interpretations, and on that basis, the evidence cannot confirm it over its competitors.

Namely, the church teaches the primacy, not supreme authority, of Peter and His chair. Cyprian teaches the same thing… and even though he contended with Rome while Pope Stephen disagreed, he contended on the basis that no infallible statement had been released by Pope Stephen… and we’ll note that the doctrinal dispute was settled and the African Church did eventually accept the position which Rome had taught.

I suppose we do substantially differ on what the RCC teaches about Peter’s primacy. What I learned from Catholic dogmatic theologians, seminary etc. contradicts your description of the Catholic position. Allow me to cite a few Catholic theologians on this matter to illustrate.

The following citation is the commentary of Msgr. Van Noort on the teaching of Vatican I:

“If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of the jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the whole world; or if anyone says that he has only a more important part and not the complete fullness of this supreme power; or if anyone says that this power is not ordinary and immediate either over each and every church or over each and every shepherd and faithful member: let him be anathema.”

"The jursidiction of the sovereign pontiff is supreme.

There cannot be found in any other person or persons, taken singly or collectively, a power that is greater or even equal to his. This assertion states, then, that the power of the supreme pontiff is greater than:

 *a*. the power of any individual bishop and patriarch;
 *b*. the power of the whole college of bishops taken collectively (without the pope).

Assertion 6. The jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff is absolutely complete in itself (per se plena).

The supreme pontiff possesses in himself alone the plenitude of supreme power, and not merely the major portion of that power. For if the plenitude of sacred power were to reside in the college of bishops (including the pope) in such fashion that the pope had more power that the rest of the bishops, even considered collectively, he would still possess only the largest share of that power; but he would not strictly possess the total power without any reservation. In that hypothesis, the power of the Roman pontiff could still be called “supreme,” but it would not be absolutely complete in itself. It is true that in the aforesaid hypothesis no individual bishop, and no collection of bishops (exclusive of the pope) would have power equal to the pope; but the power of the pontiff would not be absolutely complete in itself. As a matter of fact, however, the supreme pontiff, alone and without the consent of the bishops or the Church, can do anything that pertains to the jurisdictional powers of the Church." - Msgr. Noort, Gerardus Van. Dogmatic Theology. Vol. II. Westminster, Ma.: Newman, 1957, pp. 281-282.

"In consonance with this declaration, the Primatial power is:

a) A true power of jurisdiction that is, a true governing power, not merely warrant of supervision or direction, such as, for example, belongs to the president of a political party, or a society, or of a conference. As a governmental power, it embraces the full power of legislation, administration of justice (disputed and voluntary jurisdiction) and of its execution. Corresponding to it on the part of the subjects is the duty of subordination and of obedience.

…

c) Supreme power in the Church, that is, there is no jurisdiction possessing a greater or equally great power. The power of the Pope transcends both the power of each individual bishop and also of all other bishops together. The bishops collectively (apart from the Pope), therefore, are not equal to or superior to the Pope." - Ott, Ludwig, and James Bastible. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book, 1954 p. 285.

I’ll have address Cyprian in a separate post.

 

[Perplexity]

ALL historians? Are you sure you want to make that claim, since all I have to do is find one historian who disagrees in order to prove that claim to be the exageration that it is…

Of course that’s an exaggeration, that only emphasizes how confident I am in it.

I’ve been reading the actual documents. Have you?

Then, I’ll assume you’re aware that there are two versions of Cyprian’s chapter 4, On Unity? One has the claims about primacy [Primacy Text], the latter doesn’t [Received Text]. Many scholars take the latter document to be a correction by Cyprian of misinterpretations of the earlier version:

“The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines. Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.” - Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60.

Cf. the following scholars who say the same thing about chapter 4 having two versions, the one without mention of primacy being the correction of the other:

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: (100-600). Chicago: University of Chicago, 1971. p. 159

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. London: A. & C. Black, 1958. pp. 205-206

Finally, here’s a plausible alternative to your interpretation of this text:

“It is equally possible [as Maurice Bévenot’s thesis] that the two forms of text originated in the fourth century with the Donatist schism in North Africa, the Donatist ecclesiology being conciliar with strong emphasis on apostolic succession, producing the Received Text, and that of their opponents stressing the value of communion with Rome, producing the Primacy Text.” - Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. pp. 154-155.

 

[Ruthie_again]

But PETER IS NEVER SAID TO POSSESS INFALLIBILITY,

That’s unfortunate, because it means everything he said or did in the Bible is fallible. How can the Bible be inerrant, if I can challenge Peter’s words and deeds as fallible? (Of course, he was fallible indeed when he denied Christ three times. But I sure hope he was infallible when he declared that gentiles were included in the Kingdom!)

NEVER PROCLAIMED AS THE HEAD OF ALL CHRISTENDOM,

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. But I find “thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” to be a pretty good proclamation that the Pope (Peter’s successor) is the head of the Church on earth…

AND NEVER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THE BODY

Continuing from Mt 16: “whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…” How does that exclude making rules and/or pronouncing doctrine?

[Peter] never used those “powers” or “gifts” in the way the Papacy has throughout history, and is supposed to according to accepted Church doctrine.

What history? Which doctrine? Please name your sources. And give us your proofs that Peter never used those gifts.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Okay, let’s look at Matthew 16…Simon alone is renamed to Kepha (the rock).

Maybe. We don’t know for certain what Aramaic word was spoken, or even if Aramaic was spoken at all. That “kepha” is the word behind “you are Peter [Petros]” seems likely given that elsewhere in the NT Peter is called “Cephas.” But absent any Aramaic manuscript evidence, all we have is conjecture.

Simon is told that he is the rock on which the church will be built,

Again, maybe. But here I think the probability is against it. First, you have to keep in mind that “You are Peter [Petros]” may or may not have the same referent as "and upon this rock [petra]. Two distinct Greek words are used here, which may be significant given the fact that A) Matthew didn’t have to use Greek at all–that is, he could have simply used “Kepha” in both places (if that in fact was the Aramaic word that stands behind the Greek), and B) he could have simply used “Petros” twice. In other words, the choice to use two distinct words–one for Simon [Petros] and one for “rock” [petra], may suggest that two distinct rocks are in view. This, of course, was a common understanding of the church fathers, most of whom saw something or someone else signified by “this rock.”

I could also mention the Syriac evidence, most of which suggests that the translators (of the Greek into Syriac) understood “Peter” and “this rock” to be two distinct entities, not a single person.

Catholics tend to read the Greek word “and” [kai] in the phrase “You are Peter and upon this rock” as conjunctive. But kai can sometimes be adversative, especially in Matthew, and so could just as easily be translated as “but” if the context warrants it. (See for example Matthew 1:25, where kai is translated as “but” by the RSV rather than “and” as a clear contrast is being made).

Here the context clearly warrants “but upon this rock.” Peter may be a “rock” of sorts, but “this rock” will be the foundation of the church, which arguably isn’t Peter. Consider the way Peter is portrayed in Matthew. Jesus also nicknames him “skandlon” [stumbling stone] “oligopistos” [you of little faith] and even "Satan. The last mention of Peter by name in Matthew is he denial of Christ where we find him “weeping bitterly.” It is Matthew who tells us that if we deny Christ before men (as Peter certainly did) that he will deny us before his Father. So it is hardly surprising that Matthew deletes Peter’s name from the post Resurrection narrative. Where we would expect Jesus to be finally giving Peter the keys he promised to give him (recall he says he “will give” [future tense]) and hand over jurisdiction to him, we instead see a commissioning of all his disciples with not the slightest hint that he left Peter in charge.

In any event, even if Peter is also “this rock,” the papacy as defined by Rome simply doesn’t follow from that fact. In other words, “Peter is this rock therefore the bishop of Rome is infallible in matters of faith and morals and has a primacy of universal jurisdiction of the entire body of Christ” is hardly convincing.

To demonstrate that this is an office, Jesus appoints Peter as steward of the Kingdom of Christ using nearly the exact same words as God used to appoint Eliakim in Isaiah 22.

Perhaps Isaiah 22 is in view. Matthew often alludes to the OT. But more often he cites it directly: “This is to fulfill what the prophet Isaiah said…” If Jesus and/or Matthew is directing our attention to an “office” that endures, surely he would have been more explicit as he is in the rest of Matthew’s gospel when something theological is at stake. In fact, the wording doesn’t really match Isaiah. Isaiah mentions a single “key.” Revelation 3 also quotes Isaiah 22 and likewise mentions a single “key.” But Matthew has “keys” (plural) and the language of “binding/loosing” isn’t the same as “opening/shutting” that we find in Isaiah. But we do find “binding/loosing” used again in Matthew 18, and there it clearly signifies the authority to discipline and it is clearly given to all the disciples, not just Peter alone. This forces the conclusion that–assuming Matthew is the best interpreter of Matthew–that Peter’s binding/loosing authority symbolized in the “keys” is identical to the authority that the other disciples are given in two chapters later.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Isaiah 22 is in view. If so, keep reading. you’ll find that Eliakim ends up unequal to the task he was given. He is likened to a peg that cannot bear the weight placed upon him. In other words, he fails. How can we be certain that Jesus isn’t alluding that part of Isaiah 22 as well? It’s special pleading on the part of Rome to argue that only the “royal steward” motif is in view but not also the eventual failure of Eliakim. In other words, if there is a typological correspondence between Eliakim and Peter, then both those things that are congenial to Rome’s view and inconvenient to it have to be taken into consideration, or else we have a case of special pleading.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Maybe. We don’t know for certain what Aramaic word was spoken, or even if Aramaic was spoken at all. That “kepha” is the word behind “you are Peter [Petros]” seems likely given that elsewhere in the NT Peter is called “Cephas.” But absent any Aramaic manuscript evidence, all we have is conjecture…Again, maybe. But here I think the probability is against it. First, you have to keep in mind that “You are Peter [Petros]” may or may not have the same referent as "and upon this rock [petra].

argumentum ad ignorantiam - arguing that something is false because you don’t know it to be true OR arguing something is true because you don’t know it to be false.

It is evident the language was indeed Aramaic because we have a record indicating the book of Matthew was translated to Greek early on in the church from Aramaic.

The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: “Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively “Hebrew style”) and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or “translated”) them as best he could.”

Furthermore, there are Aramaic words still preserved in many English bibles to this day. ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ found in Matthew 27:46 is not Greek, it’s Aramaic.

In Galatians, Peter is referred to as “Kepha” in the Greek manuscripts by St. Paul which is Aramaic not Greek.

Galatians 1 Verse 18:

Greek: Ἰεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα
Latin: Jerosolymam videre Petrum, et mansi apud eum diebus quindecim
English: Jerusalem to see Peter

If we have evidence that he spoke it in Aramaic then we must accept the evidence until solid evidence proves otherwise. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

In any event, even if Peter is also “this rock,” the papacy as defined by Rome simply doesn’t follow from that fact. In other words, “Peter is this rock therefore the bishop of Rome is infallible in matters of faith and morals and has a primacy of universal jurisdiction of the entire body of Christ” is hardly convincing.

In the OT God established a kingdom on earth and appointed men to rule over his kingdom: Saul, David, Solomon…Jesus was a descendant of David and is God. Jesus’ kingdom is in heaven and he established His Church on earth. Since God does not change (Malachi 3:6), it only seems reasonable that he would appoint men to be leaders of His Church on earth, and that there would be some type of succession involved until the end of the current age.

Ever hear of the idiom “not seeing the forest for the trees”? It’s when we pay too much attention to details and fail to understand the general situation.

 

[Ruthie_again]

Miguel said,

Peter may be a “rock” of sorts, but “this rock” will be the foundation of the church, which arguably isn’t Peter.

If it isn’t Peter, then it must be the rock Jesus was standing on.

Let’s look at the language.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus 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. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:15-18 (KJV)

Only if you remove the portion I emphasized, would it makes sense that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” is the rock the Church is founded on. Yet, there it is, included in Scripture. You can’t skim over it or disregard it.

As for Peter’s failings, Jesus chose him in spite of them. He intended our first Pope to be a man who was humbled by his own mistakes - an example to all of us as well as to the Popes that followed him.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

argumentum ad ignorantiam - arguing that something is false because you don’t know it to be true OR arguing something is true because you don’t know it to be false.

But that’s not the claim. Here’s the claim: We don’t know that the scene that Matthew records in Greek was actually spoken in Aramaic. It’s merely a probability, albeit a strong one. But given that Jesus and his disciples almost certainly spoke Greek as well and that Greek is the earliest manuscript evidence we have, we simply can’t rule out the possibility that the entire scene—which took place in Greek-speaking Gentile territory—may have actually took place in Greek.

But let’s assume that Aramaic was what was spoken. On this assumption we can only say that Aramaic was spoken; we can’t say which precise words were spoken for sure. Still less are we sure about which word or words for “rock” were used. I think kepha almost certainly stands behind petros. But minra could just as easily stand behind petra as kepha. (I can explain why if you wish—but the reasons are too lengthy to post here). This means that Matthew’s choice of two Greek words may be due to the fact that there were two underlying Aramaic words—one used as a name for Peter, and one used as the foundation upon which the church is to be built.

It is evident the language was indeed Aramaic because we have a record indicating the book of Matthew was translated to Greek early on in the church from Aramaic.

What we have is the claim of an historian that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and that it was later translated into Greek. What we don’t have is any evidence to back Papias’ claims. Contrast this ancient claim to what modern textual critics claim—namely, that the entire New Testament, as it has come down to us, was originally composed in Greek. Who to believe?

Furthermore, there are Aramaic words still preserved in many English bibles to this day. ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ found in Matthew 27:46 is not Greek, it’s Aramaic.

Which only proves that some Aramaic words were preserved in the original Greek composition. This is far short of anything like an original Aramaic, which in any event, is no longer extant. In other words, Divine Providence preserved the New Testament primarily in Greek and did not deign it necessary to preserve the Aramaic originals, if there ever were any to begin with.

In Galatians, Peter is referred to as “Kepha” …

Which is not in dispute. I acknowledge that Peter is frequently referred to as “Kepha” or “Cephas.” But does this prove the existence of Aramaic original composition of Matthew’s gospel? In fact, while Matthew does preserve all kinds of Aramaic—he does not preserve “kepha.” Why? If it is so certain that the original Aramaic was,“you are kepha and upon this kepha,” then how is that we have not a single manuscript (out of the thousands that exist) that reads this way? As you point out, Matthew uses Aramaic throughout. Why didn’t he just use “kepha” in both places unless it was his purpose to distinguish Peter from the rock upon which the church is built?

In the OT God established a kingdom on earth and appointed men to rule over his kingdom: Saul, David, Solomon…Jesus was a descendant of David and is God. Jesus’ kingdom is in heaven and he established His Church on earth. Since God does not change (Malachi 3:6), it only seems reasonable that he would appoint men to be leaders of His Church on earth, and that there would be some type of succession involved until the end of the current age.

“It only seems reasonable.” I trust you see that this is hardly an argument.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If it isn’t Peter, then it must be the rock Jesus was standing on.

Or his confession of faith that the Father revealed to him, or even Christ himself , just as Augustine and many other church fathers believed.

Only if you remove the portion I emphasized, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, would it makes sense that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” is the rock the Church is founded on. Yet, there it is, included in Scripture. You can’t skim over it or disregard it.

Agreed. But would you agree that it is possible to not skip over these words and come to a different conclusion than you do? I ask because a number of ancient commentators did, St. Augustine being one of those.

One of the things people often forget is that Peter was the last of the disciples to make this confession and that it may very well have taken the Father’s special revelation to get through his thick skull. For we read back in Matthew 14:33 the following: “Then those who were in the boat [the other disciples] worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” So you see, Peter’s confession is the confession of all believing Christians and as such was seen by many ancient commentators to be the rock upon which the church was built. You may not agree. But it is a viable lexical option, especially since Matthew takes such great pains to distinguish the Petros (Simon Peter) from the “petra” upon which the church is built.

As for Peter’s failings, Jesus chose him in spite of them. He intended our first Pope to be a man who was humbled by his own mistakes - an example to all of us as well as to the Popes that followed him.

Jesus chose Peter in spite (or maybe even because of) his failings—but not to be the pope, as nothing like a papacy is even remotely in view in Matthew’s gospel, even if at the end of the day Peter is “this rock.”

 

[JonathonofOhio]

But that’s not the claim. Here’s the claim: We don’t know that the scene that Matthew records in Greek was actually spoken in Aramaic. It’s merely a probability, albeit a strong one. But given that Jesus and his disciples almost certainly spoke Greek as well and that Greek is the earliest manuscript evidence we have, we simply can’t rule out the possibility that the entire scene—which took place in Greek-speaking Gentile territory—may have actually took place in Greek.

But let’s assume that Aramaic was what was spoken. On this assumption we can only say that Aramaic was spoken; we can’t say which precise words were spoken for sure. Still less are we sure about which word or words for “rock” were used. I think kepha almost certainly stands behind petros. But minra could just as easily stand behind petra as kepha. (I can explain why if you wish—but the reasons are too lengthy to post here). This means that Matthew’s choice of two Greek words may be due to the fact that there were two underlying Aramaic words—one used as a name for Peter, and one used as the foundation upon which the church is to be built.

But it is the claim, because as shown above you assume that it was Matthew who used two different names, when the evidence shows that Matthew was most likely written in another language first (Aramaic or Hebrew), and then translated to Greek, not by Matthew but by others. The fact that the Apostle Paul uses no other name for Peter, except Kepha is evidence enough to show that Matthew didn’t either. So, yes, it is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam because you are suggesting you are correct because there is a lack of evidence (in your opinion) to prove you wrong, but you provide no evidence, biblical or otherwise. to prove your view correct. Your entire line of argument is: “I’m correct, because there is not enough evidence (in my opinion) to prove me wrong, and I must be correct because there is not enough evidence (in my opinion) to prove you right.”

What we have is the claim of an historian that Matthew wrote in Hebrew and that it was later translated into Greek. What we don’t have is any evidence to back Papias’ claims. Contrast this ancient claim to what modern textual critics claim—namely, that the entire New Testament, as it has come down to us, was originally composed in Greek.

This is Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck). What we have is historical evidence that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek. You are rejecting some historical documentation of an event purely because it does not agree with your opinion instead of presenting reasonable proof why the historical record should be called into question.

we simply can’t rule out the possibility that the entire scene—which took place in Greek-speaking Gentile territory—may have actually took place in Greek.

It seems just a tad illogical to assume Jesus spoke in greek at this particular time all because he was in a location where the predominate language may have been greek. He was speaking to his disciples in this particular passage, not to a crowd of people, and all of them were Hebrew-speaking (or perhaps Aramaic-speaking) Jews. So I propose that the evidence at this point shows that he spoke the name “Kepha”, and not another name.

Which is not in dispute. I acknowledge that Peter is frequently referred to as “Kepha” or “Cephas.” But does this prove the existence of Aramaic original composition of Matthew’s gospel?

As a matter of logic it does:

Paul preached to the Greeks, and in his letter to the Galatians, written in greek, he uses the Hebrew name for Peter, not the greek or latin name. In the beginning of the epistle Paul shows that Kepha approves of the gospel he is preaching and that is the proof he offers to the Galatians that he is preaching the Truth. What logical reason would Paul have to use the Hebrew name for Peter in a letter written in greek?

“It only seems reasonable.” I trust you see that this is hardly an argument.

It is a good argument because I based my reasoning on the evidence I provided, and not on probabilities and assumptions that contradict evidence previously put forward. I trust that you saw the simple logic in my argument, so you dismissed it without a reasonable response.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

But it is the claim, because as shown above you assume that it was Matthew who used two different names,

You misunderstand. Matthew is using two different words that mean “rock,” Petros (as a name for Simon Peter) and “petra” (in the phrase “upon this rock”). The word “petra” isn’t being used as a name as you suggest.

… when the evidence shows that Matthew was most likely written in another language first (Aramaic or Hebrew), and then translated to Greek, not by Matthew but by others.

The “evidence” shows no such thing. A claim by an historian writing long after the fact without any manuscripts to substantiate that claim hardly constitutes “evidence.” Nor are you in any position to assign anything like probability here. Yet this fact does not deter you from saying “most likely.” But how do you know what is/is not likely in this situation? In point of fact, if the foremost textual critic in the world, Kurt Aland, can tell us that the entire New Testament was originally composed in Greek (and he does say that), then it would seem to me that any claim to the contrary would have to be weighed accordingly. In other words, it is possible that Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic. But how likely this may be is very difficult to determine, especially when most textual critics are confident that he originally composed in Greek, despite Papias’ claims. (Or is Papias infallible in your book?)

The fact that the Apostle Paul uses no other name for Peter, except Kepha is evidence enough to show that Matthew didn’t either.

That’s a non-sequitur. Paul’s terminology says nothing one way or the other about Matthew and vice versa. They wrote independently of each other.

So, yes, it is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam because you are suggesting you are correct because there is a lack of evidence (in your opinion) to prove you wrong, but you provide no evidence, biblical or otherwise. to prove your view correct.

This doesn’t even make sense. I’m not arguing that I’m right just because we don’t know what language Matthew wrote in or which Aramaic words Jesus may have spoken. I’m only saying we don’t know. That’s not argumentum ignorantiam–that’s honesty.

Your entire line of argument is: “I’m correct, because there is not enough evidence (in my opinion) to prove me wrong, and I must be correct because there is not enough evidence (in my opinion) to prove you right.”

That’s a gross misrepresentation of what I’m arguing. Nowhere did I say “I’m correct because of x, y or z”. You said "Peter and “this rock” are one and the same on the strength of the entirely unsupported assertion that “kepha” is the the Aramaic word that stands behind both “Peter” and “this rock.” I said, “maybe.” But we don’t know that for sure because there is no surviving Aramaic manuscript evidence that could confirm or deny your assertion. Then I went on to argue–and could argue further still–why Jesus may have used two, not one Aramaic word, since there are two, not one corresponding Greek words that–on your hypothesis–were translated by others from Matthew’s original, thereby showing that these hypothetical translators most likely found two words, not one word, for rock.

It seems just a tad illogical to assume Jesus spoke in greek at this particular time all because he was in a location where the predominate language may have been greek.

You need to read more carefully. I didn’t say Jesus spoke Greek in this situation. I said he and his apostles knew how to speak Greek. Since that is the case, how can you or anyone else rule out the possibility that he spoke Greek in that situation, given the Gentile venue? (Answer: you can’t) My point is this: apart from the manuscript evidence we do have, we simply do not know which exact words Jesus spoke in this situation. Therefore, it seems logical to me that if you’re going to construct a doctrine as momentous as that of the papacy, then you ought to do so on the basis of the evidence we do have (namely thousands of Greek manuscripts) and not on the basis of the Aramaic which we do not have.

He was speaking to his disciples in this particular passage, not to a crowd of people, and all of them were Hebrew-speaking (or perhaps Aramaic-speaking) Jews. So I propose that the evidence at this point shows that he spoke the name “Kepha”, and not another name.

And I quite agree with you that he probably did speak Aramaic and probably did call Simon “kepha.” But do I know this? No. It’s an inference based on probability. Now, having admitted that “kepha” would have been the word Jesus used for Peter, does it follow that he used the same word for “this rock?” Aramaic has many words for rock. When we look at how the Aramaic Targums and the Greek Septuagint translate the major Hebrew words for rock, it turns out that the Aramaic word, “minra” (in the Targums) just as often translates the Hebrew as the Greek word “petra” (in the Septuagint.) If that is the case–and it is–then how do you know Jesus didn’t say, “You are kepha and upon this minra”? In fact, you can’t rule this out. The mere fact that the Greek has two distinct words for rock at least suggests the possibility (if not the probability) that Jesus spoke two distinct Aramaic words–kepha for Peter and perhaps minra for “this rock.” And if that is the case (as seems more likely than not), then Jesus most likely has two distinct referents in mind. In other words, Peter maybe “kepha,” but “kepha” probably isn’t “this rock” or if it is, it likely has a different sense than it does when it is being used as a name for Peter, which would plausibly explain why the Greek has two distinct words, not one.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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?

Remember, they are not to boast. So, dont expect St Peter going around telling everyone he is the leader. This is known by all the Apotles and the people, do not need to be talked about it.

First, you need to understand the Jewish culture and how they lived as God gave them all they need to live as God’s people. So, is the Church today. Jesus gave His chosen ones instructions how to proceed His Ministry.

Here is a good site that explain quite a bit of it. writen by an x-protestant.

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

 

[PJM]

How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

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?

LightBearer

Because of the prudence of limited space; I’ll be as brief as possible. God; both Yahweh and Jesus always insisted on ONLY One God, One One set of Faith beliefs and Only One Church. This then is the foundation, and cause of the papacy; Peter being the First.

Psalms 127:1
“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”

**The decision of Peter as “Pope” rest with Christ alone. 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” Mt. 16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note please this in on the initiative of Jesus, not Peter. Jesus is say many critically important things in these two brief passages.

1. I God intend to found ONE new religion and church. 2. I God choose Peter [title not yet developed] to head this New Church. 3. I do this because salvation rest upon its teachings which I personally warrant [Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17: 15-19; Jn.20:19-23, Mt. 28:19-20] and I am aware that I shall soon be put to death. In order that my teachings do not cease with my death; I Jesus set up a organization to carry on in my name, with my power and my authority. 4. There is ONLY and one gate with access to heaven. I leave the key and the access to Peter and my beloved Apostles, to carry on for me.
2. The terms “bind” and “loose” were at the time they were spoken common legally binding terms for unlimited authority of governance. THAT is what is being passed on to Peter by Christ. How could Jesus expect to accomplish what he commands: Mt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” This would be an impossibility without the unlimited authority to Govern, guided by the HS, all teachings on all Faith belief-issues and all matters touching on moral issues.

**I can provide a list of 50 Biblical first for Peter **as well as testimonies of the Early Church Fathers. Here are just a few: NOTICE Mt. even calls Peter “FIRST” Mt. 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother.” And Peters is named first in every list of the Apostles.

1. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
2. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
3. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
4. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
5. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [A.D. 200]).

Friend there is OH so very much more I could share space permitting,

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[JonathonofOhio]

You misunderstand. Matthew is using two different words that mean “rock,” Petros (as a name for Simon Peter) and “petra” (in the phrase “upon this rock”). The word “petra” isn’t being used as a name as you suggest.

with:

This doesn’t even make sense. I’m not arguing that I’m right just because we don’t know what language Matthew wrote in or which Aramaic words Jesus may have spoken.

What doesn’t make sense is that you in one paragraph claim Matthew wrote “petra” and “petros”, and then you admit we don’t know what language it is written in, and this justifies your interpretation of scripture that Jesus did not establish the office of the Papacy with Peter.

That’s a non-sequitur. Paul’s terminology says nothing one way or the other about Matthew and vice versa. They wrote independently of each other.

A non-sequitur is something that doesn’t follow. If Paul used the name of Kepha it follows he got it from somewhere, and since the word means “stone” or “rock”, and he was writing in Greek and still used the Hebrew name for Peter, it follows that he meant it to be interpreted that Peter is the leader who has given him approval, and, therefore, authority to preach the Gospel, and this conclusion considers the context of the letter not just the meaning of the words. Drawing a reasonable and logical conclusion is not a non-sequitur.

A claim by an historian writing long after the fact without any manuscripts

Long after the fact? The evidence I was pointing to was written between 100 and 140 A.D. which is not long after Matthew is said to have been written, which historians place between 80-90 A.D.

You need to read more carefully. I didn’t say Jesus spoke Greek in this situation. I said he and his apostles knew how to speak Greek. Since that is the case, how can you or anyone else rule out the possibility that he spoke Greek in that situation, given the Gentile venue? (Answer: you can’t)

As a matter of fact we can: based on the simple fact that it doesn’t make sense that he would suddenly speak Greek to a group of Aramaic/Hebrew speaking disciples.

My point is this: apart from the manuscript evidence we do have, we simply do not know which exact words Jesus spoke in this situation. Therefore, it seems logical to me that if you’re going to construct a doctrine as momentous as that of the papacy, then you ought to do so on the basis of the evidence we do have (namely thousands of Greek manuscripts) and not on the basis of the Aramaic which we do not have.

Again, this is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, because you are asserting that since ‘we’ do not know the exact words spoken, the office of the papacy was NOT established by Christ Himself, but was invented by man at some point after Christ. This conclusion of yours is not based on what is known, it is based on what is not known.

Now, having admitted that “kepha” would have been the word Jesus used for Peter, does it follow that he used the same word for “this rock?” Aramaic has many words for rock.

No. “Kepha” is Hebrew, not Aramaic. Jesus was familiar with Hebrew just like any Jew since that was the language of the scriptures.