Proof of Pope

[NotWorthy]

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

But James does.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

So then, what’s your point?

 

[YADA]

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

Peter ate with gentiles [something a jew would not do] until the jewish christians [judiazers] came to town … then Peter stopped table fellowship … Peter did not teach that one should not eat at table with the gentile christians … he just personally stopped out of fear or an unwillingness to create the controversy … a personal “sin” … he was acting the role of a hypocrite but he forced no person to act similarly … Bad yes …

Paul makes much of this event … mostly to boost his own credibility and I could make some judgements on Paul’s behavior but I won’t … leave it to say that Paul felt he needed the boost to his “self” … after all he was the Apostle born out of time, a former persecuter of the christians [with blood on his hands], was accused of theft [taking the money donated to support those christians being persecuted in Jerusalem] …

Now Paul forced Timothy to be circumcised t placate the the judaizers … too bad Peter did not write about how he ‘corrected’ [rebuked] Paul “to his face” …

But if Peter did not “get it” … Paul really failed to understand because he did not just personnally act in an improper manner but brought Timothy into the impropiety as well …

Truly, though I believe they both understood the Truth … lliving that Truth was hard and thy both were human, with human fears and failings …both of them rising to the occassion and failing to rise at times …

But in the contest of this hypocracy in dealing with the Judaizers, Paul would win out …

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter ate with gentiles [something a jew would not do] until the jewish christians [judiazers] came to town … then Peter stopped table fellowship … Peter did not teach that one should not eat at table with the gentile christians … he just personally stopped out of fear or an unwillingness to create the controversy … a personal “sin” … he was acting the role of a hypocrite but he forced no person to act similarly … Bad yes …

Paul makes much of this event … mostly to boost his own credibility and I could make some judgements on Paul’s behavior but I won’t … leave it to say that Paul felt he needed the boost to his “self” … after all he was the Apostle born out of time, a former persecuter of the christians [with blood on his hands], was accused of theft [taking the money donated to support those christians being persecuted in Jerusalem] …

Now Paul forced Timothy to be circumcised t placate the the judaizers … too bad Peter did not write about how he ‘corrected’ [rebuked] Paul “to his face” …

But if Peter did not “get it” … Paul really failed to understand because he did not just personnally act in an improper manner but brought Timothy into the impropiety as well …

Truly, though I believe they both understood the Truth … lliving that Truth was hard and thy both were human, with human fears and failings …both of them rising to the occassion and failing to rise at times …

But in the contest of this hypocracy in dealing with the Judaizers, Paul would win out …

I have NEVER heard this spin on these events. . In our defense of Peter, Catholics tend to put him on a pedestal, and Lord knows that many Protestants feel that Paul is literally the 2nd coming of Christ (not really, but his role is greatly enhanced).

I’m not sure, though, if Paul should be called a hypocrite. Like Peter, he was just trying to placate the Jews, maybe out of necessity. He did pay for the costs of the consecration of the 4 Nazarites in Jerusalem to placate the Jews, so it’s not out of the question. I would wonder if Paul would have been so anxious to have this circumcision if he had been the one to be snipped, though!

 

[YADA]

I have NEVER heard this spin on these events. . In our defense of Peter, Catholics tend to put him on a pedestal, and Lord knows that many Protestants feel that Paul is literally the 2nd coming of Christ (not really, but his role is greatly enhanced).

I’m not sure, though, if Paul should be called a hypocrite. Like Peter, he was just trying to placate the Jews, maybe out of necessity. He did pay for the costs of the consecration of the 4 Nazarites in Jerusalem to placate the Jews, so it’s not out of the question. I would wonder if Paul would have been so anxious to have this circumcision if he had been the one to be snipped, though!

THANKS

Well, I tend to think globally about the scriptures and avoid the proof texting …and I just don’t like it when someone takes one example [Paul’s rebuke and discussion of the event with Peter] but fail to see where Paul did the same thing he rebuked Peter for and where he took those similar stances so much farther …

Te entire vision of Peter [bad, not bright, fallable - called *satan by Jesus] V Paul [the greatest thing since Christ Himself] thing …

We do not have a record of every christian writer from the first century … we cannot know of every event, every nuance and every failing [nor every triumph] of those first Christians … when we try to use the record we have be it the Holy Scripture or the writings of the Early Church Fathers … we need to be mindful that we do not possess the entirety …

And of course they were not writing for the 20th century mindset nor with the questions of the 20th century in mind …

They were writing to a first century audience, solving first century questions in a world where there were no cameras, computers, or DVD’s, people primarily walked every where and the basics of living [food, housing] were the primary focus of the day’s activity … coupled with the political forces of the day … life was hard - penalties harsh …

 

[NotWorthy]

THANKS

Well, I tend to think globally about the scriptures and avoid the proof texting …and I just don’t like it when someone takes one example [Paul’s rebuke and discussion of the event with Peter] but fail to see where Paul did the same thing he rebuked Peter for and where he took those similar stances so much farther …

Te entire vision of Peter [bad, not bright, fallable - called *satan

by Jesus] V Paul [the greatest thing since Christ Himself] thing …To be honest with you, I think Peter was only made “Proto Apostle” due to the Dilbert Principle - Because he was tall and had good hair! You certainly can’t say it was for his thoughtfulness and level-headedness after reading the four Gospels!

 

[mercygate]

To be honest with you, I think Peter was only made “Proto Apostle” due to the Dilbert Principle - Because he was tall and had good hair! You certainly can’t say it was for his thoughtfulness and level-headedness after reading the four Gospels!

You may be onto something. I always thought Peter was the pick because after making such a jerk of himself so many times in the Gospels, he would be protected from the sin of pride. We all know that humility is to know the truth and to love it for Jesus’ sake. The “servant of the servants” needs to be humble and needs to know the truth when he sees it. With Peter’s record before the Ascension, nobody could argue that HE was the “obvious” choice. Me? I’d have picked Matthew.

 

[NotWorthy]

With Peter’s record before the Ascension, nobody could argue that HE was the “obvious” choice. Me? I’d have picked Matthew.

And why do you say that? John would have been my choice.

 

[mercygate]

And why do you say that? John would have been my choice.

At risk of going off topic, I would pick Matthew because, as a tax collector, he was good at keeping records! He was organized – had to be. John? Hmm. Preacher to the papal household?

 

[YADA]

Well for me …

I heartily commend all of the apostles … it could not have been easy being a follower of Jesus then :nope:

Peter - for all his humaness - did recognize that our Messiah was present in the man Jesus! …

And we don’t have recorded all of the foibles of the others … I highly doubt that they were always unmovably sure in their belief in Jesus … afterall - where are they at the foot of the cross thats right only John was present … and is this the same young man who ran away leaving his clothes behind gotta love the little images from scripture that make you chuckle] in the garden when Jesus was arrested? …

We have people who can’t make it to Mass because its Superbowl Sunday or “they had a hard week at work” … in the early church [and some areas of the world today] people risk death to spend an hour with Jesus at Mass … People [All of the apostles and disciples - including Peter and Paul] risked their lives and their livelihoods to proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior of the World, God Incarnate … they offered themselves up rather than deny Christ …

Today from the comforts of the greatest nation - some choose to denigrate the “Rock” [chosen and so named by Jesus] upon which the people of God are built [the Chruch] who was martyred for Christ becuae he failed to eat with gentile christians on one occassion …

I think Peter and Paul understood each other very well, each knew they had a role to play in thier mission to spread the Gospel [Good News of Salvation] to the world… I actually believ they had respect for each other …

Afterall, Peter wrote about Paul’s letters

15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. 17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

The Apostles were lss interested in one upping each other than Christians are today …

Peter also illustrates his role as the “Servant to the Servants of God” here

1 So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. 2 Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. 3 Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.5 Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: “God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble.” 6 So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.

 

[BRB]

Back on topic …

Clearly James had the ‘local’ authority to make the call. He had the jurisdiction/bishopric. He listened to all the arguments and he made the final call. Everyone knew him as ‘the just’ … so let ‘the just’ make the local judgement.

Could Peter of overruled him if needed … Yes. But, it wasn’t needed … James listened to Peter & Paul and was convinced.

Re: who hold the keys.
Maybe there are two identical sets of keys. The pope holds the duplicate set, Christ holds the other original set. Since the pope doesn't make decisions w/o consultation with the King .... all still rests in hands of the King.

 

[Menorrah]

Peter had an argument with Paul, and Paul won’t listen to Peter. If Peter had the last say, why would there be need to consult James? Paul could have listen to Peter and that’s it.

In Galatians, Paul said Peter is to be blamed. Huh?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

You may be onto something. I always thought Peter was the pick because after making such a jerk of himself so many times in the Gospels, he would be protected from the sin of pride. We all know that humility is to know the truth and to love it for Jesus’ sake. The “servant of the servants” needs to be humble and needs to know the truth when he sees it. With Peter’s record before the Ascension, nobody could argue that HE was the “obvious” choice. Me? I’d have picked Matthew.

It’s easy to identify with him.

 

[BRB]

Peter had an argument with Paul, and Paul won’t listen to Peter. If Peter had the last say, why would there be need to consult James? Paul could have listen to Peter and that’s it.

In Galatians, Paul said Peter is to be blamed. Huh?

Being the first Pope doesn’t make one perfect. Popes always consult with experts within/without the Church.

Peter wasn’t as educated and wise as Paul & James. Left up to himself, he made some wrong calls in the past. We all have our limitations.

But, he was willing to listen and argue the case with the other Apostles. He wasn’t ‘power hungry’. He was reasonable … and ultimately made the right calls. If he chose to delegate a papal responsibility to another Apostle [James]… thats fine.

Its called Family Teamwork. Teamplayers always have advantage in battle. Peter was Papa Coach, but he listened to quarterback, etc. … and let them play the game as required.

Another item of interest for you … do you realize in Gospel of Luke, it is reported that the Resurrected Christ appeared first to Peter, before the other 10 saw him.

This suggests Peter held the papal primal power position.

Yes I know that Christ even earlier appeared to Mary [in account given in another Gospel] … but, among the apostles, Peter seems to have seen Christ first.

 

[SCALCO]

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 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.

References to Isaiah 22? I’d like to see your reference if you have it, Mercygate.

This is from Mark Bonocore:

St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), who writes:

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Cassian is clearly drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.

I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it’s not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says:

“David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.” (Aphraates, xxi, 13).

Also, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350) writes:

“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.” (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).

From Answer to James White on the Early Papacy

 

[mercygate]

References to Isaiah 22? I’d like to see your reference if you have it, Mercygate.

This is from Mark Bonocore:

St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), who writes:

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Cassian is clearly drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.

I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it’s not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says:

“David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.” (Aphraates, xxi, 13).

Also, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350) writes:

“Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.” (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).

From Answer to James White on the Early Papacy

I warned you that I would forget to go dig up the reference from the Fathers connecting Is 22:22 with Mt. 16:18 (which I think might be in Jurgens). I will not have access to it until next week because I am attending a Scripture conference over the weekend.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter had an argument with Paul, and Paul won’t listen to Peter. If Peter had the last say, why would there be need to consult James? Paul could have listen to Peter and that’s it.

Where does it say that Peter had an argument with Paul? I’m unfamiliar with this incident.

In Galatians, Paul said Peter is to be blamed. Huh?

And Paul is right. Peter was acting out of step with what he was preaching.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Scriptural evidence in addition to Matthew 16:18 for Peter’s leadership over the apostles and Church:

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, "the beloved disciple,” who is mentioned 29 times. All the apostles except Peter combined are only named 130 times. Peter is always listed first among the Apostles except in Galations 2:9.

Places where Peter is listed first:
Matthew 10:2
Mt 26:37 Jesus takes Peter (listed first) and the two sons of Zebedee with him during the Agony in the Garden.
Mk 1:16 Peter listed first among the call of the first disciples
Mk 1:36 Peter, listed first, is the one to find Jesus leaving Capernaum
Mk 3:16 Peter listed first in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas mentioned last).
Mk 5:37 Jesus does not allow anyone to accompany Him inside the synagogue except Peter (listed first), James, and John.
Mk 9:2 Peter listed first among the 3 disciples to witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Mk 13:3 Peter listed first among disciples
Mk 14:33 Peter listed first among the disciples in the Garden
Lk 6:14 Peter listed first among apostles in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas is listed last).
Lk 8:51 Peter listed first among disciples allowed to enter the synagogue with Jesus.
Lk 9:28 Peter listed first among disciples who witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Jn 21:2 Peter listed first among the seven disciples in the resurrection appearance in Galilee
Acts 2:37, 1:3, Peter mentioned first among the apostles.
Acts 3:1 Peter listed first
Acts 4:13 Peter named first
Acts 4:19 Peter named first, and again speaks before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:29 Peter named first among apostles and speaks as leader
Acts 8:14 Peter named first
1 Cor 15:5 Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears first to Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles

Also, the scripture refers to “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing that he had a special position of authority amongst them.

Other scriptures showing or suggesting Peter’s authority:

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.
Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Scriptural evidence in addition to Matthew 16:18 for Peter’s leadership over the apostles and Church:

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, "the beloved disciple,” who is mentioned 29 times…

Another person who does NOT consider Paul an apostle.
Paul is mentioned MORE than Peter BTW…
**This is some of the MOST effortless apologetics i’ve seen. **

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Pauline Primacy-51 Reasons
1. Paul is the only apostle who is called God’s chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
2. Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.
3. The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).
4. Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).
5. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).
6. Paul is the only apostle to call himself “father” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
7. Paul is the steward of God’s grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.
8. Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.
9. The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.
10. Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.
11. Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.
12. Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).
13. Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).
14. Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).
15. Paul seems to have received more opposition from false teachers than any other apostle did, since he was the Pope (Romans 3:8, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Galatians 1:7, 6:17, Philippians 1:17).
16. Paul seems to have traveled further and more often than any other apostle, as we see in Acts and his epistles, which is what we might expect a Pope to do.
17. Only Paul’s teachings were so advanced, so deep, that another apostle acknowledged that some of his teachings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter’s understanding of doctrine doesn’t seem to be as advanced as Pope Paul’s. Paul has the primacy of doctrinal knowledge.
18. Paul was the first apostle whose writings were recognized as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).
19. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).
20. Only Paul refers to himself having a rod, a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 4:21).
21. Paul initiates the council of Acts 15 by starting the debate with the false teachers (Acts 15:2) and delivering a report to the other church leaders (Acts 15:4).
22. Peter’s comments in Acts 15:7-11 are accepted only because Pope Paul goes on to confirm them (Acts 15:12).
23. When the Corinthians were dividing over which apostle to associate themselves with, Paul’s name was the first one mentioned (1 Corinthians 1:12).
24. Paul was the only apostle with the authority to deliver people over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).
25. Paul had the best training and education of all the apostles (Philippians 3:4-6).
26. Paul is the only apostle to call the gospel “my gospel” (Romans 2:16).
27. Paul writes more about the identity of the church than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12, Colossians 1, Ephesians 4-5), which we might expect a Pope to do. Paul is the standard of orthodoxy and the Vicar of Christ on earth, so he has the primary responsibility for defining what the church is and who belongs to it.
28. Paul writes more about church government than any other apostle does, such as in his pastoral epistles.
29. Paul discusses church unity more than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4), suggesting that he was the one responsible for maintaining church unity because of his papal authority.
30. Paul writes more about the gospel than any other apostle does (Romans, Galatians). As the leader of Christianity, Paul was most responsible for explaining the gospel and other Christian doctrine.
31. After Jesus, Paul speaks more about the kingdom of God than anybody else does (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Galatians 5:21, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). After leaving earth, Jesus passed on the responsibility of teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul, the king of the church on earth.
32. Paul speaks of revealing mysteries more than any other apostle does (Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 5:32, 6:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:7), since he was the chief teacher of the church.
33. Paul was the only apostle other people tried to impersonate (2 Thessalonians 2:2), since he had more authority than anybody else.
34. Paul’s clothing works miracles (Acts 19:11-12).
35. Paul is delivered from death more than any other apostle (Acts 14:19, 28:3-6, 2 Corinthians 11:23).
36. The Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13 associate themselves with Paul rather than with any other apostle.
37. The demons in Acts 19:15 recognize Paul’s primacy.
38. The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognize Paul’s primacy, saying that he’s the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere.
39. Paul had authority over the finances of the church (Acts 24:26, 2 Corinthians 9:5, Philippians 4:15-18).
40. Paul acts as the chief shepherd of the church, taking responsibility for each individual (2 Corinthians 11:29). For example, Paul was Peter’s shepherd (Galatians 2:11).
41. Paul interprets prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12).
42. Only Paul is referred to as being set apart for his ministry from his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15).
43. Jesus Christ is revealed in Paul (Galatians 1:16), meaning that Paul and his successors are the infallible standard of Christian orthodoxy.
44. Paul is the only apostle who works by himself, only later coordinating his efforts with the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-18).
45. Only Paul is referred to as bearing the brandmarks of Christ (Galatians 6:17).
46. Every Christian was interested in Paul and what was happening in his life, looking to him as their example and their encouragement (Philippians 1:12-14).
47. Christians served Paul (Philippians 2:30).
48. Paul worked more than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10), since he had more responsibilities as Pope.
49. Paul was to be delivered from every evil deed (2 Timothy 4:18), meaning that he was infallible.
50. Only Paul is referred to as passing his papal authority on to successors who would also have authority over the church of God (Acts 20:28).
51. Among the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3, the church of Ephesus is mentioned first, since the bishops of Ephesus have primacy as the successors of Paul. The church in Ephesus “cannot endure evil men” (Revelation 2:2), meaning that the bishop of Ephesus is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Ephesian church puts false teachers to the test (Revelation 2:2) by exercising its papal authority. The bishop of Ephesus has the responsibility of evaluating all teachers and declaring which are orthodox and which are not. None of the other churches in Revelation 2-3 are described as having this authority.