Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[cjaubert]

A major sticking point between Catholics and Protestants arises from Matthew 16:18-19. Catholics believe that these passages prove that Jesus Christ put Peter in charge of His Church on earth, in essence making Peter the first Pope. Protestants deny this, mainly because, if it is correct, then the Catholic Church must, indeed, be Jesus Christ’s Church on earch.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do with Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

 

[Todd_Easton]

A Protestant would probably say that by Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus is making each believer a pope in his own right, endowing each believer with the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture and decide for himself what the truth is.

 

[Contarini]

cjaubert:

A major sticking point between Catholics and Protestants arises from Matthew 16:18-19. Catholics believe that these passages prove that Jesus Christ put Peter in charge of His Church on earth, in essence making Peter the first Pope. Protestants deny this, mainly because, if it is correct, then the Catholic Church must, indeed, be Jesus Christ’s Church on earch.

No, it doesn’t work that way. Most Catholics would agree that the Papacy has developed from the time of Peter, so accepting that Peter was some kind of leader of the early Church doesn’t automatically endorse everything that happened later. (And on the other side, I for one think it’s clear that the papacy is a development from something established by Jesus in this passage.)

There are two major hurdles that Catholics have to overcome:

1. You have to show that the bishops of Rome have received Peter’s authority in a manner qualitatively different from that in which other bishops have received it. There are a good many patristic passages that can be cited on both sides of this one, so you hardly have a clear-cut case.
2. You have to show that the power Jesus granted Peter included the charism of infallibility, such that in any major church-dividing controversy Peter’s successors (this of course depends on pt. 1) will represent the true Church. This is the real sticking point for me. I accept that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter (whether this can be said to be by direct divine authority or simply by providential, historical development I’m not sure). But I am not convinced that any division between them and other Christians amounts to a rebellion against Christ’s Church on the part of the other Christians. And that is really the key point. (Pt. 1 returns here, inasmuch as many of us think that the power given to all the apostles in chap. 18 is essentially the same as the power here given to Peter; thus, while we recognize the primacy of Rome, we don’t think that the power of the keys can simply be reduced to papal authority.)

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Freedom_1]

When I was growing up in a Protestant church, the emphasis of that passage was the different Greek words- petros/petra.

Common belief was that Jesus was saying the statement that Peter made that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation of the church- so the power came from the idea that Jesus is Christ, and believers (everyone) will have the powers mentioned in that passage.

Here is a site that has a sermon outline like one I would have heard growing up:

newtestamentchurch.org/outlines/expository_outlines/MATT/MT16_13.HTM

Peace.

 

[Roman_Army]

Contarini:

No, it doesn’t work that way. Most Catholics would agree that the Papacy has developed from the time of Peter, so accepting that Peter was some kind of leader of the early Church doesn’t automatically endorse everything that happened later. (And on the other side, I for one think it’s clear that the papacy is a development from something established by Jesus in this passage.)

There are two major hurdles that Catholics have to overcome:

1. You have to show that the bishops of Rome have received Peter’s authority in a manner qualitatively different from that in which other bishops have received it. There are a good many patristic passages that can be cited on both sides of this one, so you hardly have a clear-cut case.
2. You have to show that the power Jesus granted Peter included the charism of infallibility, such that in any major church-dividing controversy Peter’s successors (this of course depends on pt. 1) will represent the true Church. This is the real sticking point for me. I accept that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter (whether this can be said to be by direct divine authority or simply by providential, historical development I’m not sure). But I am not convinced that any division between them and other Christians amounts to a rebellion against Christ’s Church on the part of the other Christians. And that is really the key point. (Pt. 1 returns here, inasmuch as many of us think that the power given to all the apostles in chap. 18 is essentially the same as the power here given to Peter; thus, while we recognize the primacy of Rome, we don’t think that the power of the keys can simply be reduced to papal authority.)

Edwin

Edwin

Development? Was Peter infallible when teaching ex cathedra? Yes. Did Peter emphasize on his primacy? Of course. Are the other Bishops infallible? Yes, in Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope. Papal authority and infallibility were always believed. Why do you think Luther had to be excommunicated and King Henry VIII went in schism? Why do you think St. Augustine himself and St. Cyprian of Carthage and others believed in the Papacy? Answer: Papal primacy and infallibility existed and was believed. Just because the recent Vatican 1 and 2 councils mentioned “infallibility,”** doesn’t mean it didn’t exist prior to that time. **

 

[Catholic_Dude]

In regards to the petra/petros thing I would ask protestants to exaplain what the Church Father’s meant when they talked about the “Chair of Peter”. Was it a real chair or a symbol indicating authority?

 

[sandusky]

Matthew 16:18
18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

By the above verse you contend that Christ is appointing Peter as the Pope, the undisputed head of the church. I don’t think so, but I know this is concrete in the Catholic mind.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

In the above verses, Paul is scolding the Corinthian church for its divisions. Notice that scolding entails one group claiming to be “of Paul, another claiming to be “of Apollos” another to be “of Peter” and another to be “of Christ.”

Let’s zero in specifically on the scolding of those who claim to be “of Peter.” If Peter had such primacy with respect to the being the head of the church, why isn’t Paul scolding the others, and exhorting them to be only “of Peter” and submit to Peter’s authority?

1 Corinthians 3:5-17
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.

Here Paul makes it clear that the men are servants of God, through whose preaching the people believed, on account of the sovereignty of God.

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.

“I [Paul] planted,” (Paul here begins to use an agricultural analogy, he is saying that he started the church at Corinth), Apollos watered and God caused the growth

7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Notice that the men, including Peter, are nothing, but God (who is all in all) and He is the one who grows and controls the Church.

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

In v10, Paul switches from the agriculture analogy to a construction analogy. Paul says he is the builder, who laid the foundation, and another (in the context, Apollos) builds upon the foundation built by Paul. Peter is nowhere in sight as a builder of the Corinthian church, nor any of the churches that Paul built on his missionary journeys. In this can be seen the apostolic teaching of the local church with local authority.

(Question for Cjaubert: How do you think this fits into the idea of Peter as first Pope).

(continued in post #8)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #7)

11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

In the building analogy, which the Lord also uses with Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church,” Paul here says that the foundation upon which the church is built is Christ. Who or what the rock is upon which Christ will build His church is answered here: Christ.

Clearly then, because Paul says that he is here (and in other regions) building the church, and that Christ is the foundation of the church, the Lord must have meant something else in His Mt. 16:18 statement to Peter. Peter is not building in these statements, and neither is he said to be the foundation upon which the church is built, and he is not referred to as the head of the church; Peter is absent.

12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.
14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Notice also, that this section of Scripture is one that is used by the RCC to prove purgatory. But clearly, from the context, the specific people in view here are pastors who are building upon the foundation, and it is their work that is in view, as to whether or not they are building properly, by proper exhortation and preaching of the written Word. This cannot have anything to do with the notion of purgatory because it is the works of the man that are tested by fire, not the man himself vv13-14.

1 Corinthians 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Still in context, Paul, in 1 Cor 4:6 says that he has used these figures—the agricultural and construction analogies—for the sake of the Corinthian church, so that they may learn not to exceed what is written (Scripture) in the building of the church.

That is a very strong statement in favor of Scripture alone. The exhortation is to follow the written word, not oral tradition, most of which is contained in what is finally written.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

sandusky-

Mt 16:18
By the above verse you contend that Christ is appointing Peter as the Pope, the undisputed head of the church. I don’t think so, but I know this is concrete in the Catholic mind.

You forgot to add the next verse in which Peter is given the Keys.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
In the above verses, Paul is scolding the Corinthian church for its divisions. Notice that scolding entails one group claiming to be “of Paul, another claiming to be “of Apollos” another to be “of Peter” and another to be “of Christ.”

Let’s zero in specifically on the scolding of those who claim to be “of Peter.” If Peter had such primacy with respect to the being the head of the church, why isn’t Paul scolding the others, and exhorting them to be only “of Peter” and submit to Peter’s authority?

Each of those men were good Christians, the problem was divisions concerning people playing the Apostles and Christ against eachother, in truth those guys are on the same team and work together. Its no different than nowdays where different protestant denominations make the same types of claims, most protestants ignore most of the 4 Gospel accounts and focus mostly on Paul’s writings, others focus on extra Biblical figures, eg Luther, Calvin, etc Each group singles out a factor and plays it against the rest.

In the building analogy, which the Lord also uses with Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church,” Paul here says that the foundation upon which the church is built is Christ. Who or what the rock is upon which Christ will build His church is answered here: Christ.

Clearly then, because Paul says that he is here (and in other regions) building the church, and that Christ is the foundation of the church, the Lord must have meant something else in His Mt. 16:18 statement to Peter. Peter is not building in these statements, and neither is he said to be the foundation upon which the church is built, and he is not referred to as the head of the church;

Peter is absent.

Your missing the point and turning this into something its not. There are references to Peter, Paul and Christ as builders, so you cant conclude that Mt16 means something else while 1Cor with Paul means what it means. Two of the ones mentioned are apostles building upon the ultimate foundation, Jesus via the Gospel.
About your last line, you ignored what the last words of chapter 3:21 So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apol’los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; 23 and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

Notice also, that this section of Scripture is one that is used by the RCC to prove purgatory. But clearly, from the context, the specific people in view here are pastors who are building upon the foundation, and it is their work that is in view, as to whether or not they are building properly, by proper exhortation and preaching of the written Word. This cannot have anything to do with the notion of purgatory because it is the works of the man that are tested by fire, not the man himself vv13-14.

What do you mean by “pastors”? Jesus didnt entitle someone to be a pastor by getting a degree from a university. Im not sure how to interpret that passage, but I dont know if its limited to “pastors” if you keep reading it says:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are. 18 Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise.It looks like Paul is talking to anyone who reads this letter.

Still in context, Paul, in 1 Cor 4:6 says that he has used these figures—the agricultural and construction analogies—for the sake of the Corinthian church, so that they may learn not to exceed what is written (Scripture) in the building of the church.

That is a very strong statement in favor of Scripture alone. The exhortation is to follow the written word, not oral tradition, most of which is contained in what is finally written.

Thats not still in context, you ignored Ch3:16-23 especially 21-23. Also that is not a Scripture alone proof because I dont know about you, but I “go beyond what is written” by accepting the very next writing 2nd Corinthians.

 

[Hildebrand]

*8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.*

In v10, Paul switches from the agriculture analogy to a construction analogy. Paul says he is the builder, who laid the foundation, and another (in the context, Apollos) builds upon the foundation built by Paul. Peter is nowhere in sight as a builder of the Corinthian church, nor any of the churches that Paul built on his missionary journeys. In this can be seen the apostolic teaching of the local church with local authority.

(Question for Cjaubert: How do you think this fits into the idea of Peter as first Pope).

(continued in post #8)

Exactly, local churches (dioceses with the bishop as head) do have local authority. There is nothing in the Catholic Church that denies the local authority of bishops.

And you still have not answered the question:

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do with Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

The WHOLE text of Matthew 16:18-19, not just Matthew 16:18.

 

[cjaubert]

Hildebrand:

And you still have not answered the question:

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do with Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

The WHOLE text of Matthew 16:18-19, not just Matthew 16:18.

Hildebrand, you are EXACTLY right - the question has not been answered. That is the problem with Protestants - they simply cannot answer the simplest questions. They are very good at claiming we Catholics are wrong, we don’t know how to interpret scripture, etc., but they cannot (or will not) affirmatively tell us why. Come on all you Protestants, please just answer the question - it really is a simple question.

God bless…

 

[Contarini]

Development? Was Peter infallible when teaching ex cathedra? Yes. Did Peter emphasize on his primacy?

There is no evidence that Peter or any other early “Pope” claimed infallibility. Some of the Councils do use language about the See of Rome that amount to a claim of infallibility, but a developed notion of papal infallibility doesn’t appear until the later Middle Ages. That does not of course mean that the doctrine is necessarily false.

** Of course. Are the other Bishops infallible? Yes, in Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope. Papal authority and infallibility were always believed.**

Those of us who do not accept this as a matter of faith will not accept this claim wthout evidence. And you will have trouble providing such evidence.

Why do you think Luther had to be excommunicated and King Henry VIII went in schism? Why do you think St. Augustine himself and St. Cyprian of Carthage and others believed in the Papacy? Answer: Papal primacy and infallibility existed and was believed. Just because the recent Vatican 1 and 2 councils mentioned “infallibility,”** doesn’t mean it didn’t exist prior to that time. **

There’s no evidence that Augustine or Cyprian believed in papal infallibility. On the contrary, both of them were willing to go up against Rome when they thought it was wrong. I don’t dispute that they believed in papal primacy. I believe in it myself.

Of course papal infallibility existed as a doctrine before Vatican I. One form of it develops in the period of the Christological controversies, in which Rome repeatedly wound up as the champion of orthodoxy (though not always). It appears to have been shelved for centuries as a more administrative and legal conception of the papal office developed. In that rather different context, infallibility appears not to have been affirmed until the 14th century.

Edwin

 

[Roman_Army]

Contarini:

There is no evidence that Peter or any other early “Pope” claimed infallibility. Some of the Councils do use language about the See of Rome that amount to a claim of infallibility, but a developed notion of papal infallibility doesn’t appear until the later Middle Ages. That does not of course mean that the doctrine is necessarily false.

Peter did not say anything about infallibility. But, his ex-cathedra preaching was infallible. As for infallibility not appearing until the Middle Ages:

Tertullian 160 AD

Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching.

(The Prescription of Heretics, Chapter 23)

Contarini:

Those of us who do not accept this as a matter of faith will not accept this claim wthout evidence. And you will have trouble providing such evidence.

**Sorry, I forgot you were protestant, lol. **

St. Ambrose 340-397

What else can please them unless(which God forbid) the Godhead of Christ should be denied? Plainly they agree well with the Arian who says that Christ is a creature, which also heathen and Jews most readily acknowledge.

This was decreed at the Synod of Ariminum, and rightly do I detest that council, following the rule of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor the sword can detach me, which faith the father of your Clemency also. (Letter No. 21)

St. Athanasius 296-373

‘Thus believes the Catholic Church’; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs; but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.

(Letter on the Council of Arininum and Seleucia)

**The Acts of the Apostles also shows how councils were needed and are still needed. Ecumenical Councils are infallible when it comes to preaching ofcourse. **
Cantarini:

There’s no evidence that Augustine or Cyprian believed in papal infallibility. On the contrary, both of them were willing to go up against Rome when they thought it was wrong. I don’t dispute that they believed in papal primacy. I believe in it myself.

**Maybe they did not write anything about papal infallibility, but that also doesn’t mean they didn’t believe in it. St. Augustine obviously believed in the infallibility of the Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Councils. He also emphasized on the word “Catholic” and preached that the true church is the one that is known by all as “Catholic.” And papal infallibility was proclaimed in Ecumenical Council. **

Contarini:

Of course papal infallibility existed as a doctrine before Vatican I. One form of it develops in the period of the Christological controversies, in which Rome repeatedly wound up as the champion of orthodoxy (though not always). It appears to have been shelved for centuries as a more administrative and legal conception of the papal office developed. In that rather different context, infallibility appears not to have been affirmed until the 14th century.

**When was Rome not the champion of orthodoxy? Please, back that up. It may have been wrong when it came to secular politics or on how to discipline people. But, when did it ever preach heretical doctrine? Infallibility did not appear in the 14th century only. The apostles themselves were infallible, and because of Peter’s primacy his successors in office too continued that infallibility. **

 

[Wormwood]

**

**1 Corinthians 4:6
**

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Still in context, Paul, in 1 Cor 4:6 says that he has used these figures—the agricultural and construction analogies—for the sake of the Corinthian church, so that they may learn not to exceed what is written (Scripture) in the building of the church.

sandusky: This is a really good argument, and one I have yet to see convincingly addressed.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that Jesus did NOT intend to make Peter the first Pope. If that is true, then what, EXACTLY, did Jesus do with Peter here? What authority, EXACTLY, if any, did Jesus give to Peter?

The WHOLE text of Matthew 16:18-19, not just Matthew 16:18.

If you start from 15, it seems to say that Peter, and possibly the other disciples, had the insight needed to start the church. As for 18, This could mean many things. The keys could be insight, or assurance that the apostles would join Jesus after death. The keys could be the key points of his teachings or anything else. The second part of the verse is also highly interpretable. It could mean anything from what you say, to a restatement of do unto others. The point I am trying to make is that the verse does not clearly spell out what the church claims. What authority was given? None that I can see, and certainly not one of infallable judgement (wasn’t it Peter that denied christ three times?). **

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Wormwood-

sandusky: This is a really good argument, and one I have yet to see convincingly addressed.

I talked about it already:
Thats not still in context, you ignored Ch3:16-23 especially 21-23. Also that is not a Scripture alone proof because I dont know about you, but I “go beyond what is written” by accepting the very next writing 2nd Corinthians.

If you start from 15, it seems to say that Peter, and possibly the other disciples, had the insight needed to start the church. As for 18, This could mean many things. The keys could be insight, or assurance that the apostles would join Jesus after death. The keys could be the key points of his teachings or anything else. The second part of the verse is also highly interpretable. It could mean anything from what you say, to a restatement of do unto others. The point I am trying to make is that the verse does not clearly spell out what the church claims. What authority was given? None that I can see, and certainly not one of infallable judgement (wasn’t it Peter that denied christ three times?).

The thing that most protestants dont realize is that Matt16:18-19 is not the ONLY verse Catholics use (though one is enough). The PRIMACY of Peter is very clear all through the 4 Gospels as well as in Acts. He is at the front of almost every important issue, one important one was when he was given the vision in Acts10 to be the first one to open the door to Gentiles! VERY IMPORTANT!

 

[sandusky]

** sandusky: This is a really good argument, and one I have yet to see convincingly addressed.**Thank you, Wormwood

 

[E.E.N.S]

Contarini:

There are two major hurdles that Catholics have to overcome:

Actually Ed (can I call you Ed?), since history shows an unbroken line of successors from Peter to our current Pope Benedict XVI, the burden of proof should be on the protestants.

 

[javelin]

**
If you start from 15, it seems to say that Peter, and possibly the other disciples, had the insight needed to start the church. As for 18, This could mean many things. The keys could be insight, or assurance that the apostles would join Jesus after death. The keys could be the key points of his teachings or anything else. The second part of the verse is also highly interpretable. It could mean anything from what you say, to a restatement of do unto others. The point I am trying to make is that the verse does not clearly spell out what the church claims. What authority was given? None that I can see, and certainly not one of infallable judgement (wasn’t it Peter that denied christ three times?). **

You certainly can think of many things that the image of keys could signify, but what we should do is see what it would signify to the people Jesus was speaking to - Jews.

They were awaiting a Messiah, of the line of David, who would establish a new kingdom that would last until the end of time. These things are clear in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Well, it just so happens that the “keys” are a powerful symbol when taken in that context. The holder of the “keys of the kingdom” acts with the authority of the king himself, as his first representative, and his word can be taken as though from the king himself (binding and loosing). The keys were also the sign of a singular office in the kingdom; an office that is filled by succession when the holder of the office passes.

Thus, we see Peter being given the keys to the new kingdom, and upon Peter that kingdom, the Church, is built. Christ is still the head and King, but He has given special authority to Peter and his successors.

So you can make up lots of potential things that Jesus may have meant, but the meaning that makes sense when looking at his audience, Jewish history, and the activity of the development of the early Church, is the Catholic interpretation.

Peace,
javelin

 

[mercygate]

Contarini:

There is no evidence that Peter or any other early “Pope” claimed infallibility. Some of the Councils do use language about the See of Rome that amount to a claim of infallibility, but a developed notion of papal infallibility doesn’t appear until the later Middle Ages. That does not of course mean that the doctrine is necessarily false. . . . Edwin

This is always a hurdle for us converts. For my :twocents: , infallibility rises out of the concept of the indefectibility of the Church. It is one of those logical processions that develops as the Church lives her life through the ages. For me, the idea of having a house of bishops without Peter in it was the clincher. “Upon this rock:” to be out of communion with Peter is (to my mind) incompatible with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

Actually Ed (can I call you Ed?), since history shows an unbroken line of successors from Peter to our current Pope Benedict XVI, the burden of proof should be on the protestants.

Unbroken history?

Does that include having three popes / antipopes at the same time?