Office of Pope?

[NotWorthy]

I have recently become rather a fan of the Psalms of David…

Psalm 109:8 “May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership”

PO, please be considerate of other people, who may be eating their dinner and/or drinking something while reading your post. How many computers were damaged because of such wrecklessness as this post!

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[NotWorthy]

There are many good points to respond to, I don’t think I’ll get to all of them but I’ll try. The verse that seems to be brought up the most is Matthew 16:18. I don’t believe that the Lord Jesus gave Peter the office of Pope here. I don’t think you can get this verse and run with it and say that this establishes the office of Pope. Christ is the Stone which the builders rejected. Matthew 21:42-44 says: Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Onetime, I find all your references to be spot on. Christ IS the living stone! No Catholic denies that, for that’s exactly what the Church teaches.

But where do any of these posts say, “He is the Living Stone, hence, there can be no other rocks”? Especially when that Living Stone Himself declares that “You (Peter) are Rock”. How can you deny His very words?

I would propose to you that Jesus is adopting Peter to be His Spiritual son. Notice how Matthew 16 begins. Have you ever pondered Jesus words in Matthew 16:4, “…An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah…” Don’t you find it ironic that Jesus calls Peter (in verse 17, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah (BarJonah).”? Within 11 verses of calling Himself the Anti-Type of Jonah, Jesus calls Peter “Son of Jonah”.

I wonder at this “sonship” even further when I read Matthew 17 & 18. Look at Jesus’ words. Doth not your master pay the didrachmas? [24] He said: Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying: What is thy opinion, Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom? of their own children, or of strangers? [25] And he said: Of strangers. Jesus said to him: Then the children are free.

Jesus then asks Peter to get from the fish only enough tax to cover Him and Peter. [26]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 17)*** But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook: and that fish which shall first come up, take: and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater: take that, and give it to them for me and thee*. **No “free money” for the rest of the Apostles, only Peter. Hmmm…

Note: I used the Douay-Rheims for the Matthew 17 quote, since “Sons” is considered a better translation than the NAB’s “subject”.

 

[Vince1022]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mMPm6W3o&feature=related

There’s nothing in the Bible that requires the Papacy to exist as we currently experience it. There’s also nothing that prohibits it.

What does seem to be essential from the witness of Scripture is the unique role Peter played among all Apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

There’s nothing in the Bible that requires the Papacy to exist as we currently experience it. There’s also nothing that prohibits it.

You mean maybe, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed…”?

What does seem to be essential from the witness of Scripture is the unique role Peter played among all Apostles.

Not only the unique role, but the unique authority

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Onetime, I find all your references to be spot on. Christ IS the living stone! No Catholic denies that, for that’s exactly what the Church teaches.

But where do any of these posts say, “He is the Living Stone, hence, there can be no other rocks”? Especially when that Living Stone Himself declares that “You (Peter) are Rock”. How can you deny His very words?

Building off of this comment, Msgr. Ronald Knox notes that immediately after this, when Jesus rebukes Peter in Matthew 16:23, He calls him a skandalon, or “stumbling stone.” It’s a pun based on how he was just named Rock. And Pope Benedict XVI has noted that the pope is always both – he’s a source of unity for the Church (by the protection of God), but also a source of scandal (because of his own sinfulness).

What I’ve **never **heard is any Protestant argue, “But Christ is the Stumbling Stone! Paul says so in Romans 9:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:23, and even Peter himself, in 1 Peter 2:8, says as much.”

For some reason, it’s okay to say that both Jesus and Peter are stumbling stones, but not that both are rocks.

 

[Vince1022]

You mean maybe, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed…”?

Not only the unique role, but the unique authority

No, not maybe, the kingdom of God IS like a mustard seed.

 

[po18guy]

Onetime, I find all your references to be spot on. Christ IS the living stone! No Catholic denies that, for that’s exactly what the Church teaches.

But where do any of these posts say, “He is the Living Stone, hence, there can be no other rocks”? Especially when that Living Stone Himself declares that “You (Peter) are Rock”. How can you deny His very words?

I would propose to you that Jesus is adopting Peter to be His Spiritual son. Notice how Matthew 16 begins. Have you ever pondered Jesus words in Matthew 16:4, “…An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah…” Don’t you find it ironic that Jesus calls Peter (in verse 17, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah (BarJonah).”? Within 11 verses of calling Himself the Anti-Type of Jonah, Jesus calls Peter “Son of Jonah”.

I wonder at this “sonship” even further when I read Matthew 17 & 18. Look at Jesus’ words. Doth not your master pay the didrachmas? [24] He said: Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying: What is thy opinion, Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom? of their own children, or of strangers? [25] And he said: Of strangers. Jesus said to him: Then the children are free.

Jesus then asks Peter to get from the fish only enough tax to cover Him and Peter. [26]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Matthew Chapter 17)*** But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast in a hook: and that fish which shall first come up, take: and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater: take that, and give it to them for me and thee***. No “free money” for the rest of the Apostles, only Peter. Hmmm…

Note: I used the Douay-Rheims for the Matthew 17 quote, since “Sons” is considered a better translation than the NAB’s “subject”.

Excellent! Suddenly, these two verses make perfect sense. Not only must it be considered what Jesus is saying here, but to whom He says it.

Combine this with the veritable mountain of scriptural evidence that points to Peter being chosen and placed in charge, and one must persist in a simple state of denial to avoid seeing it.

And, never mind the NT scripture - look at the form the early Church took.

 

[po18guy]

Building off of this comment, Msgr. Ronald Knox notes that immediately after this, when Jesus rebukes Peter in Matthew 16:23, He calls him a skandalon, or “stumbling stone.” It’s a pun based on how he was just named Rock. And Pope Benedict XVI has noted that the pope is always both – he’s a source of unity for the Church (by the protection of God), but also a source of scandal (because of his own sinfulness).

What I’ve **never **heard is any Protestant argue, “But Christ is the Stumbling Stone! Paul says so in Romans 9:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:23, and even Peter himself, in 1 Peter 2:8, says as much.”

For some reason, it’s okay to say that both Jesus and Peter are stumbling stones, but not that both are rocks.

Denial of the office of Peter and, to an even greater extent, denial of Church authority is the essence of ego-driven theology. A mountain of scriptural evidence reveals Peter’s role. Certain sola scripturists have used their faith in bible alone to command that mountain to be uprooted and cast into the sea. But, Peter himself wrote of the dangers of private interpretation of scripture! Why him, of all the twelve?

 

[simspt]

i disagree. the priest admitted that some popes might be in hell according to dante’s inferno. ive been watching these debates between them and walter martin comes with solid scripture and many times the priest sounds unsure of what he’s saying. Jesus Christ in Matthew 20:25-28 says: Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The Lord Himself told them that we as Christians should not lord it over each other. Thats what you see in the Roman Catholic Church. The establishment of this pope hierarchy is definately un-biblical. In fact what seems to have happened is the Roman Catholic Church tried to model its system after Judaism with the chief priests. It certainly didn’t come from Scripture.

Once you realize Christian doctrine developed over centuries, then you might also realize that the development of Sacraments and the Papacy should not be interpreted as antithetical to the NT documents. They might go beyond the NT but certainly not contradict it.

 

[Onetime1979]

You guys do have very good point about Jesus leaving Peter in charge of the flock now that I considered all the verses and the relationship Jesus and Peter had. One thing I’m not sure of is, in the book of Acts, Paul is the one who ends up in Rome and speaks to the Jews there. It seems to me from reading Acts, that it was Paul who started to spread the gospel there. Wasn’t Paul the apostle Jesus chose to go and preach the good news to the Gentiles? But it also does clearly seem that Peter had a unique leadership role among the apostles.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

You guys do have very good point about Jesus leaving Peter in charge of the flock now that I considered all the verses and the relationship Jesus and Peter had.

I’m impressed - admitting that takes courage, and a real openness to the Truth. That was big of you.

One thing I’m not sure of is, in the book of Acts, Paul is the one who ends up in Rome and speaks to the Jews there. It seems to me from reading Acts, that it was Paul who started to spread the gospel there.

Actually, the first Christians in Rome were those converted by Peter at Pentecost – see Acts 2, especially v. 10. So Peter planted the first seeds.

Both Peter and Paul then built up the Church at Rome. While Peter was the Bishop of Rome, he wasn’t the only Apostle to spend time there - Paul and John both did, as well (which is one reason that Rome is referred to from the earliest days as “the Apostolic See,” besides it being the location of the See of Peter).

We know that Peter worked out of Rome, because he sends greetings from Rome, which he call “Babylon,” in 1 Peter 5:13. Both he and Paul were eventually martyred in Rome. My impression is that Peter was in Rome as a full-time ministry, while Paul was a full-time traveling missionary to the Gentiles.

The Early Church Fathers have numerous references to Peter being at Rome, and to Peter and Paul being at Rome. You can find them here.

Wasn’t Paul the apostle Jesus chose to go and preach the good news to the Gentiles? But it also does clearly seem that Peter had a unique leadership role among the apostles.

Paul is classically called the Apostle to the Gentiles, and in a way, he certainly was – his ministry was focused specifically on the Gentiles. But the door to the Gentiles was opened by Peter in Acts 10, at God’s command. In Acts 10:9-23, before Paul has even started his ministry, Peter is given a vision from God telling him that the dietary laws are no longer binding and that Gentiles can be saved. He explains this in Acts 11:1-18 to hostile Judaizers. Acts 11:18 is important, because it marks the first time that the early Christians acknowledged that the Gentiles could be saved, and it’s directly as a result of Peter’s vision.

Paul was a student of Peter’s, at least briefly. He learned from Peter over the course of two weeks prior to beginning his public ministry (Galatians 1:18). From Peter, he would have learned that the Gentiles were capable of being saved, and that we could safely eat with them. When Peter himself refused to eat with the Gentiles (out of fear of more angry Judaizers), Paul corrects him – he isn’t practicing what he’s preaching (Galatians 2:11-13).

Peter reminds everyone of the revelation God gave him in Acts 15:7-11 at the Council of Jerusalem, when there’s a debate over circumcision. It’s after Peter speaks that the debate stops, and Paul and Barnabas (who now have some missionary experience) are able to speak of the wonders of God being worked amongst the Gentiles. I’ve noticed that Peter and Paul are often depicted within Protestantism as enemies – Peter as some sort of semi-Judaizer, while Paul proclaims the Gospel of Grace. That’s just not true. Peter and Paul learned from each other and edified and encouraged each other (even, as in Gal. 2, sharply).

Finally, it was the Council of Jerusalem which then *sends *Paul and Barnabas to work amongst the Gentiles as a full-time ministry (Acts 15:25). This sending is important, from a Catholic perspective: they don’t work independent of the Church, but as messengers of the Good News of Christ sent by the Church. St. Francis De Sales in The Catholic Controversy shows how everyone in the Bible is either called directly by God, sent by a Prophet, or sent by the Church (in its official capacity). From this, he demonstrated that Luther/Calvin/etc. weren’t sent to create a new Church, since they weren’t called directly, nor sent by a prophet, nor sent by the Catholic Church.

So long story short, Peter was the first to work amongst the Gentiles, and the first to work amongst the Romans (both Jews and Gentiles). Paul later took up where Peter left off in converting the Gentiles, and eventually came to help build up the Church in Rome. The Catholic Church even celebrates their feast on the same day, to emphasis that they worked as a team: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Saints_Peter_and_Paul.

 

[po18guy]

You guys do have very good point about Jesus leaving Peter in charge of the flock now that I considered all the verses and the relationship Jesus and Peter had. One thing I’m not sure of is, in the book of Acts, Paul is the one who ends up in Rome and speaks to the Jews there. It seems to me from reading Acts, that it was Paul who started to spread the gospel there. Wasn’t Paul the apostle Jesus chose to go and preach the good news to the Gentiles? But it also does clearly seem that Peter had a unique leadership role among the apostles.

Paul, being educated, literate, and well versed in the scriptures from his youth, wrote much more, as he travelled much more. His letters were written in absentia - to the ecclesial communities which he had formed and intended to visit again. The idea being that the best teaching was face to face, as he wrote in 1 Thessalonians 3:10. Both of them spent much time preaching, but Paul simply wrote more.

Think of this analogy: Peter was in management, while Paul was in sales. Now, the two of them switched roles at times, but this appears to be their main thrust. However, even Peter was sent to the gentiles (Acts 15:7), as when he visited and baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 10).

Recall also that both Peter and Paul believed that the earth was in its last days. They preached with a sense of urgency, writing letters only later in their lives, when it was obvious that our Lord’s return would be delayed in the eyes of men (2 Peter 1:15, 2 Peter 3:3-4).

You are a truth seeker, which is a grace from God. Seeking the truth has its price, as you know from the scriptures. But, the reward for truth seeking is priceless.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[Onetime1979]

I’ve never had conversations with catholics about the things of Christ and His word since I accepted the Lord as my Savior. Even though I grew up in a catholic home, I never studied or cared about His word. All I knew is that I had been baptized as a baby and so I was catholic. But when the Lord began drawing me to Himself and I began reading the bible daily and the more I read, the more I knew I wanted to follow Him and be called Christian. But I know that it wasn’t of myself that I came to Him, God called me to His Son as the bible says. There were things then and to this day that made me turn from worshiping God in the catholic church. I’m not trying to offend anyone and I hope nobody is offended but some might be. That’s why I prefer praising the Lord and serving Him where I do now. But I see from talking to you guys here, that you also know the word and have a good understanding of it, even more than me it seems! I also see that there is a genuine love for Christ among you in the catholic church. And yes I’m seeing more and more why you esteem Peter so highly. I never understood it before because I never bothered to ask around and find out for myself why you believe what you believe. But on this topic about the office of Pope I can see where you’re coming from now.

 

[po18guy]

I’ve never had conversations with catholics about the things of Christ and His word since I accepted the Lord as my Savior. Even though I grew up in a catholic home, I never studied or cared about His word. All I knew is that I had been baptized as a baby and so I was catholic. But when the Lord began drawing me to Himself and I began reading the bible daily and the more I read, the more I knew I wanted to follow Him and be called Christian. But I know that it wasn’t of myself that I came to Him, God called me to His Son as the bible says. There were things then and to this day that made me turn from worshiping God in the catholic church. I’m not trying to offend anyone and I hope nobody is offended but some might be. That’s why I prefer praising the Lord and serving Him where I do now. But I see from talking to you guys here, that you also know the word and have a good understanding of it, even more than me it seems! I also see that there is a genuine love for Christ among you in the catholic church. And yes I’m seeing more and more why you esteem Peter so highly. I never understood it before because I never bothered to ask around and find out for myself why you believe what you believe. But on this topic about the office of Pope I can see where you’re coming from now.

To use the words of our Lord: “Man has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). You have received a divine revelation courtesy of the Holy Spirit. Regardless of our capacity with scripture, or our love of God, there is one thing, and one thing only that should attract you back into the Catholic Church: Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. With your love of Christ and the grace of seeking the truth, you will seek and will find.

Ask as many questions as you desire. It is a blessing unto us. Again, from Peter: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,…” 1 Peter 3:15. His letters are but two and short in length, but are powerhouses of truth.

Christ’s peace.

 

[NotWorthy]

You guys do have very good point about Jesus leaving Peter in charge of the flock now that I considered all the verses and the relationship Jesus and Peter had. One thing I’m not sure of is, in the book of Acts, Paul is the one who ends up in Rome and speaks to the Jews there. It seems to me from reading Acts, that it was Paul who started to spread the gospel there. Wasn’t Paul the apostle Jesus chose to go and preach the good news to the Gentiles? But it also does clearly seem that Peter had a unique leadership role among the apostles.

But we know from St. Paul’s Epistles that the Gospel has already reached, and flourished in, Rome long before he ever made it to Rome.

What are Paul’s words in Romans chapter 15? ""20 ****** Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation,*** 21 ****** but as it is written: “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”*** *** 22 ****** That is why I have so often been prevented from coming to you***."Christian Tradition, from the very outset, has informed us that it is St. Peter who who laid that foundation that St. Paul is talking about in verse 20.

 

[NotWorthy]

One more point regarding St. Peter being in Rome and I refer you back to the comment of “Simon BarJonah” in Matthew 16.

Jonah went to the center of the Gentile world, Ninevah, to spread God’s Word. St. Peter, the “Son of Jonah” will go to the center of the Gentile World, Rome, the spread the Good News of the Gospel.

 

[po18guy]

But we know from St. Paul’s Epistles that the Gospel has already reached, and flourished in, Rome long before he ever made it to Rome.

What are Paul’s words in Romans chapter 15? ""20 ****** Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation,*** 21 ****** but as it is written: “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”*** *** 22 ****** That is why I have so often been prevented from coming to you***."Christian Tradition, from the very outset, has informed us that it is St. Peter who who laid that foundation that St. Paul is talking about in verse 20.

One more point regarding St. Peter being in Rome and I refer you back to the comment of “Simon BarJonah” in Matthew 16.

Jonah went to the center of the Gentile world, Ninevah, to spread God’s Word. St. Peter, the “Son of Jonah” will go to the center of the Gentile World, Rome, the spread the Good News of the Gospel.

You absolutely nailed it with these two posts! Paul clearly had no desire to compete with other preachers of his day. He mentioned this specifically in his exhortation to follow Christ, rather than those whom our Lord sent (1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:21-23). This allegiance to men lead to division and factions. This, Paul also condemned (2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20).

Also, Paul wrote his letters to known believers in communities that he already established. The word was not proclaimed in writing, but rather face to face. It was corrected in writing - but only when Paul could not meet with them to make up what was lacking in their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:10).

 

[po18guy]

I am a born again Christian and I wanted to post this video titled: “Is there evidence that Jesus Christ established the office of Pope over His church.” It is a very interesting debate between Christian apologist Walter Martin and Roman Catholic priest Mitchell Pacwa over the office of Pope.
youtube.com/watch?v=bR5mMPm6W3o&feature=related

I just noticed your self-identification as “born again”. You were baptized Catholic, and so you remain forever Catholic - part of the universal Church. However, each and every Catholic is “born again” just as Jesus taught Nicodemus (John 3:3-5), by “water and the Spirit”.

 

[po18guy]

One more point regarding St. Peter being in Rome and I refer you back to the comment of “Simon BarJonah” in Matthew 16.

Jonah went to the center of the Gentile world, Ninevah, to spread God’s Word. St. Peter, the “Son of Jonah” will go to the center of the Gentile World, Rome, the spread the Good News of the Gospel.

You have my mind racing now! Since Peter denied Christ three times, (thus running Jonah-like away from God), later repenting and re-affirming his love of Christ (a restoration of obedience as with Jonah),I am pondering whether Simon bar Jonah is a* type* of the “sign of Jonah”? The concept of Peter as possessing sonship might make this so. I note also that the name Jonah appears only twice in scripture: the prophet, and as father, either literal of spiritual, of Simon Peter.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

You have my mind racing now! Since Peter denied Christ three times, (thus running Jonah-like away from God), later repenting and re-affirming his love of Christ (a restoration of obedience as with Jonah),I am pondering whether Simon bar Jonah is a* type* of the “sign of Jonah”? The concept of Peter as possessing sonship might make this so. I note also that the name Jonah appears only twice in scripture: the prophet, and as father, either literal of spiritual, of Simon Peter.

The primary fulfillment of the sign of Jonah was in the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Matthew 12:40 shows this – Christ became sin (prefigured by Jonah’s rebellion), and is swallowed up into the deep, only to be spit up back onto the earth on the third day.

That said, I think it’s quite possible that Jesus intends both meanings, by calling Peter a son, in essence. I think the verses provided by the earlier poster did a very good job of showing that.