Proof of Pope

[NotWorthy]

Rev 3:7To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, 5 write this**: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this: **

Ok, Jesus is the Shepherd and He made the Apostles shepherds (according to Jeremiah’s prophecy). Jesus is the Rock and He makes Peter the Rock. Jesus holds the keys and he gives Peter the keys.

I think this is consistent with the rest of the Church’s teaching.

Also notice, Jesus calls himself Jonah at the beginning of Matthew 16. Then 10 verses later, he calls Peter, “Simon, BarJonah (son of Jonah)”. That’s something he doesn’t do to anyone else in the New Testament.

 

[Menorrah]

But Paul does say that another one has built the foundation in Rome, which is why he never went to Rome. There are only a few people that could have built in Rome. Peter is the only one mentioned.

You misunderstood Ch. 15. Paul specifically said in Ch. 1:

11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

He actually made excuses in Ch. 15 by quoting Isaiah 52.

 

[mercygate]

Rev 3:7To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, 5 write this**: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this: **

This is supposed to mean that Jesus changed His mind about the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being entrusted to Peter? He went back on His promise?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The seat of power resided in Peter. James was simply the local bishop of Jerusalem.

For evidence of Peter’s head, look at chapter 1 in Acts.
Consider that Jesus had been with the **ELEVEN **for 40 days and never picked a successor to Judas. He left it up to His Church that He built to decide on a successor. From His words, Jesus made it clear that he would have TWELVE judges to bring in the new Church, so a successor was obvious before Pentacost. Who makes that decision? Peter.

No, he doesn’t choose the successor, but he is the one that declares, without any debate or discussion, that either Matthias or Barnabus would replace Judas and he decides the means of how its going to be done. That’s authority.

Fast forward to, what is it, chapter 9? The Gentiles come to Peter’s house, and after his dream, Peter declares that the Church is open to the Gentiles. He didn’t call a council, or consult anyone else. Peter made the decision. That’s authority.

Regarding the Jerusalem Council. Yes, James, the head of the local Church presided over it, but James is clear in declaring that his decision is based on Peter’s words. James was in his right to make the decision, but he made it in accordance with the Head of the New Church, the Rock.

Then there would be no “judgement” left to James

James also quotes scripture in addition to St. Peter’s words, And his judgment includes the prohibition on blood, strangled things, etc. on which St. Peter says nothing but the encyclical sent out explicitely say, as St. James judged.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I interpret it that the OT Types always failed, whereas the NT arch-type is the fulfillment of those pre-figurements.

You forget the last line of Matthew 16. “And the Gates of Hell will not prevail…” This is how we see the NT being the fulfillment of the failure in the OT.

Clever.

You still haven’t explained, however, how for some image supposedly so important as a type, why doesn’t this interpretation appear early, like before or even at the time of the Reformation?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You forget the preceding word, “therefore”. What is that word there for? Because he is judging based on Peter’s pronouncement.

The “therefore” comes after St. James interpretation of scripture. A judgement is a judgement, no matter what it is based on.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He was called “Father” as numerous other bishops were in the 2nd century. This later filtered down to priests. Pope comes from father, or “papa”.

As a distinctive title for a patriarch, as opposed to a bishop or even priest, it starts with Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248), at least he is the first attestation.

 

[NotWorthy]

You misunderstood Ch. 15. Paul specifically said in Ch. 1:

11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

He actually made excuses in Ch. 15 by quoting Isaiah 52.

But it seems like you are misunderstanding Romans. He’s not asking to build the Church in Rome, because its already built. Built by whom? All the Fathers assert that this was Peter.

So what do you know that they don’t?

 

[YADA]

This is supposed to mean that Jesus changed His mind about the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being entrusted to Peter? He went back on His promise?

Jesus did ot change his mind nor did he “take back” the keys … the King does not give up his authority to act just becuse he establishes an office to act upon his authority … the King [Jesus] likewise always maintains control of the keys … possessing his own “Master Key” …

Similarly, like the replacing of the evil prime minister in Isaiah, the King can take back the authority if it is mishandled … or if the office holder retires, becomes physically unable to perform the duties or dies … and then they appoint another to take his place …

The one who is appointed by the King [Jesus] serves at Jesus’ pleasure and answers to Jesus…

In addition to the title of Pope [as I and others have noted many times - is just another way of saing father - and in the case of the successor of Peter … Father to the universal - catholic - church [which is the people of God] the most apt title of the successor of Peter is “Servant to the Servants of God” … the Pope serves his brother bishops and priests plus the followers of Jesus …

 

[NotWorthy]

Then there would be no “judgement” left to James

James also quotes scripture in addition to St. Peter’s words, And his judgment includes the prohibition on blood, strangled things, etc. on which St. Peter says nothing but the encyclical sent out explicitely say, as St. James judged.

No, James made a judgment - I don’t question that. But he indicated that he was doing it in accordance to Peter’s words.
Peter has spoke… therefore, I judge…

James then makes a disciplinary statement. This discipline is changed within the decade as these prohibitions are lifted - Paul explains that in Galatians.

 

[NotWorthy]

Clever.

You still haven’t explained, however, how for some image supposedly so important as a type, why doesn’t this interpretation appear early, like before or even at the time of the Reformation?

I don’t know. All I know is people ask for Scriptural proof. When I provide it, its not good enough. They need early father proof. When we provide St. Clement and St. Victor, that’s not good enough. They need someone to reference Isaiah.

Are you saying you don’t see correlations in Isaiah?

 

[NotWorthy]

The “therefore” comes after St. James interpretation of scripture. A judgement is a judgement, no matter what it is based on.

Soyou are saying that James based it on,
a) Peter’s words
and
b) Scripture.

I’ll buy that. Just as the Apostolic Fathers, the Church uses Scripture to back up all Her teachings.

 

[NotWorthy]

As a distinctive title for a patriarch, as opposed to a bishop or even priest, it starts with Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248), at least he is the first attestation.

OK. That’s fine with me. The Trinity was first coined, when?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No, James made a judgment - I don’t question that. But he indicated that he was doing it in accordance to Peter’s words.
Peter has spoke… therefore, I judge…

You skipped over…with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written…

James then makes a disciplinary statement. This discipline is changed within the decade as these prohibitions are lifted - Paul explains that in Galatians.

Sooo you’re saying St. Peter didn’t get the message of the council, and Paul had to rebuke him then?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t know. All I know is people ask for Scriptural proof. When I provide it, its not good enough. They need early father proof. When we provide St. Clement and St. Victor, that’s not good enough. They need someone to reference Isaiah.

Are you saying you don’t see correlations in Isaiah?

No, I’m asking if they are so obvious why no one saw them until after the Reformation? By that time it is almost a thousand years that the pope of Rome had been trying to prove his supremacy. I would think someone would have noticeed what is now touted as a slame dunk proof text before modern times. To be honest, as far as I know, this use of the text doesn’t predate Scott Hahn.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Soyou are saying that James based it on,
a) Peter’s words
and
b) Scripture.

I’ll buy that. Just as the Apostolic Fathers, the Church uses Scripture to back up all Her teachings.

Don’t leave out the testimony of Ss. Barnabas and Paul. Acts doesn’t.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

OK. That’s fine with me. The Trinity was first coined, when?

As a term? Late second century. He predated that.

Pope as term? Third century. But the patriarchates of Alexandria and Rome predate that.

Supreme Head of the Church? No such predating of the term, and it doesn’t date to the first century.

 

[mercygate]

No, I’m asking if they are so obvious why no one saw them until after the Reformation? By that time it is almost a thousand years that the pope of Rome had been trying to prove his supremacy. I would think someone would have noticeed what is now touted as a slame dunk proof text before modern times. To be honest, as far as I know, this use of the text doesn’t predate Scott Hahn.

Not so. I don’t have the reference here, but I have encountered it in the Fathers. By the time I get back to my library, I will have forgotten this, but I HAVE seen it. And it cannot be a “discovery” of Scott Hahn because it is noted in the footnote of the NAB at Mt. 16:18, and the NAB was published before Hahn came up with it. Moreover, in the new Mass Lectionary, I recall Isaiah 22 and Mt 16 appearing as readings in the same Mass, and the Lectionary has been around since Hahn was in high school.

I would hesistate to use the term “proof text” since it indicates a painfully one-dimensional approach to Scripture, not to say a view of Scripture as a tool for pumping one’s own views rather than as the instrument by which one’s views are formed.

 

[NotWorthy]

You skipped over…with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written…

See post 131. I’ve got no problem with that, but the question was “who’s in charge here”. I don’t think Scripture is the authority figure. James bases his decision on Peter and the Scripture.

Sooo you’re saying St. Peter didn’t get the message of the council, and Paul had to rebuke him then?

Yes. Peter was in the wrong in separating himself from the Gentiles and Paul rightly chastised him for this. Have I led you to believe that I thought otherwise?

 

[NotWorthy]

No, I’m asking if they are so obvious why no one saw them until after the Reformation? By that time it is almost a thousand years that the pope of Rome had been trying to prove his supremacy. I would think someone would have noticeed what is now touted as a slame dunk proof text before modern times. To be honest, as far as I know, this use of the text doesn’t predate Scott Hahn.

I would go through every Church Father’s notes on Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 to see… No. that’s all right.

But let’s be honest - do you see the echoes of Isaiah 22 in Matthew 16 or not? The Church for the longest time dropped the Typology of the OT from it’s Scriptural Studies. That is a shame. It doesn’t mean that Isaiah is not a pre-figurement of Matthew.