Papal Succession Conversation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcs6f4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcs6f4

Guest
I have having a conversation with a Protestant friend and we have reached the point of agreement that Peter was given the role to shepherd the church on top of his role as the Bishop of Rome. However, the next point is that he feels Peter would not have been given the authority to pass on this dimension of his role. Basically, Peter had Primacy over the twelve but was unable to pass it on to anyone…

My question is what support to we have to show the legitimacy of papal succession. He is unconvinced of the Isaiah argument… is there anything else?

Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Peace
 
It is not surpising that he rejects the isiaih argument, look at the end result …*25b. the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: *
**
Is the church and all the members hanging on her going to fall away as well?

If any thing this speaks against a continual passing of the keys.

The key is referenced as well in Rev 3:7 (CHRIST himself possesse(s) it)
 
I have having a conversation with a Protestant friend and we have reached the point of agreement that Peter was given the role to shepherd the church on top of his role as the Bishop of Rome. However, the next point is that he feels Peter would not have been given the authority to pass on this dimension of his role. Basically, Peter had Primacy over the twelve but was unable to pass it on to anyone…

My question is what support to we have to show the legitimacy of papal succession. He is unconvinced of the Isaiah argument… is there anything else?

Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Peace
dcs, these should help:

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keyskingdom.html

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

catholic-legate.com/articles/monarch1.html
 
I have having a conversation with a Protestant friend and we have reached the point of agreement that Peter was given the role to shepherd the church on top of his role as the Bishop of Rome. However, the next point is that he feels Peter would not have been given the authority to pass on this dimension of his role. Basically, Peter had Primacy over the twelve but was unable to pass it on to anyone…

My question is what support to we have to show the legitimacy of papal succession. He is unconvinced of the Isaiah argument… is there anything else?

Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Peace
I wouldn’t let go of Isaiah so readily. I would bring up the point that, historically, the first century Jews in Palestine clearly understood what the keys meant. The king always had a second-in-charge to run the kingdom with the king’s authority when the king was otherwise unavailable. The sign of this office was a key or set of keys, usually about 2-3 feet long, that he carried over his shoulder. Whatever this second-in-charge “held bound” was backed up by the king. Whatever this second-in-charge “loosed” was “loosed” by the king. First century Jews were very familiar with the terms “binding and loosing.” Also, when this person died, another was selected to take his place, because the “office” that he held was dynastic, i.e., was supposed to have successors.

One of the reasons that most Protestants have a problem agreeing on what Scripture says (there are over 30,000 man-made, doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and counting!), is because they ignore the historical, literary, cultural, and theological context of the Bible. Their Bible exegesis is, at best, schitzophrenic.
 
I have having a conversation with a Protestant friend and we have reached the point of agreement that Peter was given the role to shepherd the church on top of his role as the Bishop of Rome. However, the next point is that he feels Peter would not have been given the authority to pass on this dimension of his role. Basically, Peter had Primacy over the twelve but was unable to pass it on to anyone…

My question is what support to we have to show the legitimacy of papal succession. He is unconvinced of the Isaiah argument… is there anything else?

Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Peace
Hi dcs6f4, I have been in a discussion regarding Peter and the papacy on another thread here called “What evidence do we have that the early bishops of Rome had authority over the entire Church” in this same Apologetics forum. As of right now, it was last updated yesterday (7/9). You might want to check it out – some of the discussion might be relevant to what you are looking for.

I think it is really significant that your friend has concluded that Peter was likely truly the head of the 12, by God’s design. In arguing that Peter had successors who shared his divinely instituted leadership capacity, I think Scripture, logic (why would God design a hierarchical structure for the first generation of Christians that would die out with them?) and history (which bears out the Catholic position) are all on your side. All three are discussed in some detail in the other thread.

Good luck!!

🙂
 
Thank you all for the responses so far. My only comment would be to Scooby. I would say I gave up the argument after typing a 2-3 page in depth version of the points you brought up and sending it his way. He just wasn’t having it I suppose. Thank you for the information nonetheless. I definitely do stick to my guns on the Isaiah argument but I think its time to move on from it.

I am not sure how much truth there is to this, however, I’ll put it out here for another discussion point. I came across a Protestant source that claimed the Isaiah argument loses a lot of its sway in a conversation because it is a relatively “new” insight… suggesting that historically, it has not been used by the Catholic Church to defend Papal succession until recently. Any truth to that?
 
I guess I should reply to you as well martin, I am not surprised that my friend rejected my argument either… and to no surprise he alluded to the same things you did. So I’ll do the same thing for you that I did for him and re-clarify…

I got this straight off the website here from This Rock magazine…

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

I agree with this… I hope you do too… chances are you don’t. Regardless, I’ll pray for you and would appreciate it if the forum doesn’t turn in to a back and forth apologetics spectacle.
 
I wouldn’t let go of Isaiah so readily. I would bring up the point that, historically, the first century Jews in Palestine clearly understood what the keys meant. The king always had a second-in-charge to run the kingdom with the king’s authority when the king was otherwise unavailable. The sign of this office was a key or set of keys, usually about 2-3 feet long, that he carried over his shoulder. Whatever this second-in-charge “held bound” was backed up by the king. Whatever this second-in-charge “loosed” was “loosed” by the king. First century Jews were very familiar with the terms “binding and loosing.” Also, when this person died, another was selected to take his place, because the “office” that he held was dynastic, i.e., was supposed to have successors…
You could even use the story of Joseph to show how powerful this “second in command” was. The decisions Joseph made regarding the distribution of food during the authority of Pharaoh
As you read the Acts of the Apostles, one of the first things they did was find a replacement for Judas. Somebody had to take over his role. This can logically be extended to the leadership of the Church.
Where is That in the Bible for ecumenical discussions. Use the RSV, a translation used by many denominations.
Your friend has already accepted Peter’s primacy among the Apostles. He is always listed first among the Apostles. While Peter is mentioned 195 times, his closest competitor is John, mentioned 29 times.
A few scriptural passages that are mentioned:
Matthew 18:18
Isaiah 22:15-25
Mark 16:7
Luke 5:3
John 21:15-19
Luke 24: 33-35
John 20:6
Acts 1:15-26
Acts 3:1-9
Acts 10,11, &15
Galatians 1:18
 
I wouldn’t let go of Isaiah so readily. I would bring up the point that, historically, the first century Jews in Palestine clearly understood what the keys meant. The king always had a second-in-charge to run the kingdom with the king’s authority when the king was otherwise unavailable. The sign of this office was a key or set of keys, usually about 2-3 feet long, that he carried over his shoulder. Whatever this second-in-charge “held bound” was backed up by the king. Whatever this second-in-charge “loosed” was “loosed” by the king. First century Jews were very familiar with the terms “binding and loosing.” Also, when this person died, another was selected to take his place, because the “office” that he held was dynastic, i.e., was supposed to have successors.

One of the reasons that most Protestants have a problem agreeing on what Scripture says (there are over 30,000 man-made, doctrinally disagreeing denominations, and counting!), is because they ignore the historical, literary, cultural, and theological context of the Bible. Their Bible exegesis is, at best, schitzophrenic.
Since we ignore the historical, literary, cultural, and theological context of the Bible and our Bible exegesis is, at best, schitzophrenic it should be an oh so simple matter for you to show that the early church exegeted the Peterine passages in Matthew as linking to Isaiah.
 
I guess I should reply to you as well martin, I am not surprised that my friend rejected my argument either… and to no surprise he alluded to the same things you did. So I’ll do the same thing for you that I did for him and re-clarify…

I got this straight off the website here from This Rock magazine…

As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Luke 1:32-33). He really is the king, not the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

I agree with this… I hope you do too… chances are you don’t. Regardless, I’ll pray for you and would appreciate it if the forum doesn’t turn in to a back and forth apologetics spectacle.
Can you provide for us the scripture where Jesus actually gives Peter the keys?
 
Can you provide for us the scripture where Jesus actually gives Peter the keys?
The promise is given in Matthew 16:13-20.
Christ preaches from Simon Peter’s boat in Luke 5:3.
The angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter.” (Mark 16:7)
The risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles. (Luke24:33-35)
Peter acts in the name of the Church when he welcomes the first Gentile converts (Acts 10)
While St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem delivers the pastoral and disciplinary teachings at the Council of Jerusalem, it is Peter who delivers the doctrinal teaching.
Paul describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.
 
The promise is given in Matthew 16:13-20.
Christ preaches from Simon Peter’s boat in Luke 5:3.
The angels single Peter out among the Apostles when they tell the Holy Women to “go, tell his disciples and Peter.” (Mark 16:7)
The risen Christ appears to Simon Peter first, before appearing to the other Apostles. (Luke24:33-35)
Peter acts in the name of the Church when he welcomes the first Gentile converts (Acts 10)
While St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem delivers the pastoral and disciplinary teachings at the Council of Jerusalem, it is Peter who delivers the doctrinal teaching.
Paul describes in Galatians 1:18 how he went to see Peter to make sure his teaching was in line with Peter’s.
But, there is no verse where we see Jesus actually giving the keys singularly to Peter is there?
 
Can you provide for us the scripture where Jesus actually gives Peter the keys?
No, I think you are missing the point and know the answer to your own question… authority is not contained in the symbol but the reality of the position.

Per my last request… I am not saying Protestants aren’t welcome in this conversation and are not entitled to their position, but these conversations are not the point of my post. I am not trying to force my opinion on my Protestant friend… he is asking for information and I am trying to find it for him. I think jumping into innocent conversations like this is a breach of prudence and poor evangelical practice.
 
But, there is no verse where we see Jesus actually giving the keys singularly to Peter is there?
Hi Semper, if you are honestly looking for the answer to your question, the passage is Matthew 16:18-19:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Although Jesus bestows a similar “binding/loosing” power on the Twelve Apostles collectively in Matthew 18:18, he gives the keys to Peter alone.

If you are looking to engage a discussion against the Catholic interpretation of the Petrine passages, I would recommend starting a separate thread elsewhere.

God bless.

🙂
 
Hi Semper, if you are honestly looking for the answer to your question, the passage is Matthew 16:18-19:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Although Jesus bestows a similar “binding/loosing” power on the Twelve Apostles collectively in Matthew 18:18, he gives the keys to Peter alone.

If you are looking to engage a discussion against the Catholic interpretation of the Petrine passages, I would recommend starting a separate thread elsewhere.

God bless.

🙂
I have now been asked by two posters to move this part of the conversation elsewhere and I will comply with their wishes but do wish to point out that the promise in Matt 16 is in the future tense. Anyway, thanks for being polite and I’ll see you around the forums.
 
… authority is not contained in the symbol but the reality of the position.
I agree. Any lackey can carry the actual keys, but authority only belongs to whom it has been given–the owner of the keys. When the person no longer has authority, the keys pass to the next person in authority.
Using a modern day example. While the children of the president may have a set of keys to the White House where they live, only the president holds the position of authority. When the president’s term ends, so does his authority. The keys are passed to the next person in the office.
 
… the promise in Matt 16 is in the future tense…
It is only natural that the promise of Matt 16 is in the future tense. Jesus was still physically with the Apostles. It is generally accepted that the responsibility for the followers of the Way, the handing over of the keys if you would, took place after the Resurrection when Jesus told Peter “feed my sheep.” Christ remains the head of the Church. Peter is His earthly representative. It is Peter who speaks for the Church.
Peter speaks for Christ in the same way that Joseph spoke for Pharaoh.
 
But, there is no verse where we see Jesus actually giving the keys singularly to Peter is there?
Are you suggesting that Jesus promised to give the keys to the kingdome to Peter but never actually did so?

As for Peter receiving the keys, this is backed up even further by John 21:15-19.

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19
, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

(cont.)
 
This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
But, there is no verse where we see Jesus actually giving the keys singularly to Peter is there?
Do you mean like, “Then Jesus reached into his pocket and pulled out a key ring of exceedingly great value. Working two of the largest keys off the ring, Jesus said, ‘Simon, I promised to give you these a few months ago, and I almost forgot…here you go. Please, don’t lose them…my father will be upset if you do.’”

Or something like that?

What exactly are you looking for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top